NIZHNY NOVGOROD REGIONAL COURT
APPEAL DECISION
The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, consisting of:
presiding judge Kondakova T.A.,
judges Kochetkova M.V. and Kulaeva E.V.,
when keeping the minutes of the court session by secretary Ignatyev S.V.,
considered in open court the appeal of O.A. Baykova.
on the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of N. Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 in the case of the claim of O.A. Baykova. to Cetelem Bank LLC to invalidate the terms of the agreement, recognize the debt as repaid, the obligation terminated, collect compensation for moral damages, legal expenses, invalidate the accrual of a fine,
after hearing the report of the judge of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court Kochetkova M.V., the explanations of the representative Baykova O.A. by proxy Dovbush M.S., judicial panel
INSTALLED:
Baykova O.A. filed a lawsuit with these demands against Cetelem Bank LLC, indicating<…>year entered into an agreement with the defendant to provide a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>. Clause 7.12 of this agreement provides that the client agrees that all issues, disagreements or claims arising from the agreement with the bank and related to the collection of debt by the bank under the agreement are subject to consideration in court at the location of the bank. The plaintiff believes that the specified condition of the contract is contrary to the law - clause 2 of article 17, clause 1 of article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 02/07/1992 No. 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, since the jurisdiction of disputes arising from contracts is one of the parties which the consumer is established by law and cannot be changed by agreement of the parties. Thus, the provisions of clause 7.12 of the loan agreement are void and on the basis of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is subject to recognition as invalid. Besides,<…> <…>year, on the need to provide information and documents, as well as on changing the provisions of clause 7.12 of the agreement regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute under this agreement.<…>year this notification was received by the bank. However, the defendant did not provide a response to this notice.<…>year, the plaintiff re-sent the said notification. Having not received a response to the repeated notification, the plaintiff<…>transferred to the bank for early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan under the agreement dated<…>year cash in the amount of<…>. Considering these actions of the defendant to be illegal, the plaintiff, taking into account the amended requirements, asked the court to recognize the terms of clause 7.12 of the agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>from<…>year invalid (void); recognize as repaid the debt to Cetelem Bank LLC under the agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a car from<…>year, and the obligations are terminated, recognize the accrual of a fine in the amount of<…>rubles for failure to submit an invalid vehicle title for temporary storage; recover compensation for moral damages from Cetelem Bank LLC in the amount of<…>rubles, legal costs in the amount of<…>rubles
To the court of first instance, plaintiff O.A. Baykova and her representative by proxy Dovbush M.S. did not appear, were notified of the time and place of the hearing of the case.
Representative of the defendant Cetelem Bank LLC, by proxy, Kurmaev D.V. did not admit the claims.
By the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of N. Novgorod dated December 11, 2014, the claims of Baykova O.A. partially satisfied. The terms of clause 7.12 of the agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a car were declared invalid due to the nullity<…>from<…>of the year.
Cetelem Bank LLC was awarded compensation for moral damage in the amount of<…>rubles, a fine of<…> <…>rubles Cetelem Bank LLC was charged a state duty to the municipal budget in the amount of<…>rubles In the rest of the claims, Baykova O.A. denied.
In the appeal of Baykova O.A. The question was raised about canceling the court decision in the part in which she was refused to satisfy her claims for recognition of the repaid debt to the bank as accepted in violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law.
In its objections to the appeal, Cetelem Bank LLC asks the court's decision to be left unchanged and the appeal to be dismissed.
The legality of the decision of the court of first instance was verified by the judicial panel for civil cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court in the manner established by Chapter 39 of the Civil Procedure Code Russian Federation.
By virtue of Part 1 of Article 327.1 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the appellate court considers the case within the limits of the arguments set out in the appeal.
Having checked the case materials, discussed the arguments of the appeal, objections to the complaint, heard the explanations of the persons who appeared in the case, the judicial panel does not find any grounds for canceling the court decision, since it was decided in accordance with the requirements of the law and the circumstances established in the case.
<…>years between Baykova O.A. and Cetelem Bank LLC entered into an agreement to provide a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>.
Clause 7.12 of this agreement provides that the client agrees that all issues, disagreements or claims arising from the agreement with the bank and related to the collection of debt by the bank under the agreement are subject to consideration in court at the location of the bank.
In accordance with Part 7 of Art. 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, claims for the protection of consumer rights can also be brought to the court at the place of residence or place of stay of the plaintiff, or at the place of conclusion or place of execution of the contract.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 17 of the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, claims for the protection of consumer rights can be brought to court at the location of the organization, the place of residence or stay of the plaintiff, the place of conclusion or execution of the contract. In this case, the choice between several courts that have jurisdiction over the case belongs to the plaintiff.
Thus, in order to protect the rights of consumers, as the economically weaker party to the contract, the legislator has introduced additional mechanisms legal protection, including in determining the jurisdiction of civil cases with their participation.
The bank’s inclusion in the loan agreement of a provision on the jurisdiction of a dispute in a specific court (in particular at the location of the bank) infringes on the consumer’s rights established by law.
According to Part 1 of Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, contract terms that infringe on consumer rights in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer rights protection are declared invalid.
Consequently, clause 7.12 of the loan agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant does not comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Law “On Protection of Consumer Rights”, and therefore, by virtue of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is void.
In resolving the stated claims, the court of first instance, having assessed the circumstances established in the case in relation to the above provisions of the law, correctly concluded that the condition of the loan agreement, clause 7.12 of the disputed loan agreement, is invalid by force of law.
The appeal does not contain any arguments challenging these findings of the trial court.
From the case materials it follows that<…>year, by registered mail with a notification and a list of the attachments, the plaintiff sent a notification to the defendant about the early repayment of the loan under the agreement dated<…>year, on the need to provide information and documents, as well as on changing the provisions of clause 7.12 of the agreement regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute under this agreement (case sheets 21-23).
<…>year this notice was received by the defendant.
However, the defendant did not provide a response to this notice.
<…>year, the plaintiff re-sent the specified notification to the bank.
Having not received a response to the repeated notification, the plaintiff<…>transferred to the bank for early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan in the amount of<…>.
It has been established that by the date of the next monthly payment (<…>year) the defendant did not credit the entire amount transferred by the plaintiff in the amount of<…>on account of early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan under the agreement dated<…>of the year.
This transfer was not made by the bank due to insufficient funds, since<…>year, the bank charged the plaintiff a fine for failure to provide a title for a vehicle in the amount of<…>rubles
<…>year, the defendant canceled the payment of a fine for failure to provide a title for a vehicle in the amount of<…>rubles (l.d. 185), and<…>year on account of the early execution of Baykova O.A. obligations under the contract credited the deposited funds to her account.
Thus, at the time of the court’s decision, the loan agreement was executed by the parties in full, and the parties’ obligations were terminated.
The court correctly stated that since at the time of the decision the said loan agreement was terminated by its execution, recognition of this loan agreement as executed (terminated) on a certain date will not in itself entail any consequences and will not directly lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights.
Taking into account the grounds of the stated claims and the subject of the dispute under consideration, the arguments of the appeal about the illegal use of funds and the accrual of interest for the period from<…>year to<…>years, do not entail the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance as unfounded.
Other arguments of the appeal, challenging the court’s conclusions on the merits of the dispute considered, also cannot affect the content of the court’s decision, the correctness of the court’s determination of the rights and obligations of the parties within the framework of the disputed legal relationship, and do not indicate the existence of the provisions provided for in Art. 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation grounds for the reversal of a court decision.
Arguments challenging the court's conclusions regarding the satisfaction of the claims of Baykova O.A. the appeal does not contain any demands for the recovery of compensation for moral damages and a fine in her favor, and no demands for the cancellation of the decision in this part.
The court did not allow any violations of substantive and procedural law that led or could lead to an incorrect resolution of this case (including those referred to in the appeal).
Meanwhile, the operative part of the decision does not indicate that the recovery from Cetelem Bank LLC of compensation for moral damages, a fine and expenses for paying for the services of a representative is made in favor of O.A. Baykova.
Within the meaning of the provisions of paragraph 6 of Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, this circumstance cannot be a basis for changing the decision. The court's decision in this part is subject to clarification.
Based on the above, guided by Articles 328, 329, 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the judicial panel for civil cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court
DEFINED:
the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of N. Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 is left unchanged, the appeal of O.A. Baykova. - without satisfaction.
To clarify the operative part of the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of N. Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 instead of the words “To recover from Cetelem Bank LLC compensation for moral damage in the amount<…>rubles, a fine of<…>rubles, expenses for payment of representative services in the amount of<…>rubles” indicate “Collect from Cetelem Bank LLC” in favor of O.A. Baykova. compensation for moral damage in the amount<…>rubles, a fine of<…>rubles, expenses for payment of representative services in the amount of<…>rubles."
Presiding judge.
Advice from lawyers:
1. I took out a car loan from Cetelem Bank and wrote an application for refusal of life insurance from Sberbank on March 24. How do I know if my insurance has been cancelled?
1.1. Easy: call SB and ask.
Good luck.
Did the answer help you? Not really
1.2. You will have to transfer the insurance funds within 10 days, or offset them against the loan, if this is provided for by the insurance rules.
Did the answer help you? Not really
2. Cetelem bank car loan vacation, loss of job.
2.1. Write an application to the bank for debt restructuring/deferment of payment, attaching documents confirming your loss of work.
Did the answer help you? Not really
3. What is the clause in the contract 1.3 amount to pay for other consumer needs? Bank Cetelem.
3.1. Not quite clear. We need to look at the contract to answer your question.
Sincerely.
Did the answer help you? Not really
4. We are going to apply for a car loan at a network bank, are we required to leave the title with the bank?
4.1. You need to find out this from the bank. The conditions for issuing a loan are different for everyone.
Did the answer help you? Not really
5. It is possible to return the insurance if you repay your car loan early at Cetelem Bank.
5.1. Is it possible to demand the return of part of the insurance, and in some cases the full amount, is the insurance now in hand?
Did the answer help you? Not really
6. How to maintain car credit. The bank sued. Sethelem.
6.1. Just negotiate with the bank, look for money and repay the loan.
Otherwise, the car will be seized by the bailiffs.
Did the answer help you? Not really
6.2. Or challenge the pledge agreement if it is drawn up with violations. There are other options, but again, it all depends on the terms of the contract. In some cases, the car is sold, and the buyer is subsequently found to be in good faith. To study the situation in more detail, you can contact us for a personal consultation using the contacts below.
With respect, lawyer in Volgograd - Stepanov Vadim Igorevich.
Did the answer help you? Not really
7. Cetelem Bank imposed a fine for late prolongation of CASCO insurance. How to dispute?
7.1. What is written in your contract terms? I take it this is a car loan? Please look. After all, a contract is when 2 parties agree on certain conditions and by signing, they confirm that they have come to an agreement on all points and confirm their intentions to fulfill the conditions set out in the contract.
If on your part there was indeed a violation of the essential terms of the contract, then the imposition of a fine (if one is also provided for in the contract) is quite appropriate.
Did the answer help you? Not really
7.2. If this fine is provided for in your loan agreement, then it is useless to dispute this fact. You yourself agreed to this condition when signing the contract. All the best!
Did the answer help you? Not really
8. Auto loan from network bank. Overdue 4 months. threaten to sue.
8.1. The bank has the right to collect in court the existing debt + fines, penalties, penalties, etc. It is better for you to reach an agreement with the bank and find a way out of the situation, otherwise legal costs will be added to the debt. If the car is pledged to the bank, then it is possible that the bank will demand foreclosure on the pledged property.
Did the answer help you? Not really
9. Can I defer the monthly payment on a car loan at a network bank?
9.1. Nikolai!
If you do this, then, obviously, the sanctions provided for in the loan agreement (penalties, fines) will be applied.
Did the answer help you? Not really
10. Cetelem Bank refuses to pay the balance of the insurance in case of early repayment of the loan.
10.1. If the loan is repaid ahead of schedule, you can claim a refund of part of the funds, if such a condition is provided for in the agreement.
Did the answer help you? Not really
11. How can I find out if I have been approved for a car loan at a network bank?
11.1. How can I find out if I was approved for a car loan at a network bank?
How can I find out if I was approved for a car loan at a network bank?
They must call, if they don’t call, it means they refused. Go pick up your documents if you handed them in.
Did the answer help you? Not really
12. How to send a policy with documents confirming payment for comprehensive insurance to the bank using a network?
12.1. You can send it by mail with a list of attachments and a receipt.
But it is better to hand it over directly to the bank.
Did the answer help you? Not really
12.2. All contact information is posted on the bank’s website, as well as a multi-line telephone number for contacting the operator, please check.
Did the answer help you? Not really
13. I'm in maternity leave child care until three years. In October last year, I took out a loan due to very urgent circumstances on unfavorable terms. Now, during the coronavirus epidemic, my husband has no income, and we also have 2 small children. How can I correctly arrange credit holidays for the maximum period at Cetelem Bank so that there is no refusal?
13.1. In order to receive a credit holiday, you must document that your spouse’s income has decreased by 30% or more; this can be confirmed by a certificate of closure of the individual entrepreneur or a certificate from the place of work. If the spouse did not work officially, then it will not be possible to apply for a credit holiday; it will only be possible to refinance the loan, at the discretion of the bank.
Did the answer help you? Not really
Consultation on your issue
Calls from landlines and mobiles are free throughout Russia
14. Soon there will be a month overdue on the car loan at the network bank, I want to make 2 payments at once in 10 days. How long does it take for the bank to sue, and do they always take the car?
14.1. Usually it takes from a couple of months to a year from delay to trial.
The car will be foreclosed on even later, until the court decision comes into force, until the case is handed over to the bailiffs. So you still have time to fix everything.
Did the answer help you? Not really
14.2. The bank will not immediately sue you; first you will have a pre-trial settlement, in the form of telephone conversations and writing letters of claim.
Sincerely! Please leave your review for my consultation!
Did the answer help you? Not really
14.3. This is at the discretion of the bank. Usually, before going to court, a claim is sent to the debtor.
Did the answer help you? Not really
14.4. Not always, the bank sues starting from 3 months.
Did the answer help you? Not really
15. I took out a car loan from Cetelem Bank and wanted to know if I can refuse life insurance, since 14 days have not yet passed since the purchase of the car. What should I do for this?
15.1. Christina, you need to write an application for termination of the insurance contract to the Insurance Company with which you have an agreement. But in such cases, banks often increase the interest rate on the loan.
Did the answer help you? Not really
15.2. Taking into account the norms of the current legislation, namely clause 1 of the Bank of Russia Directive of November 20, 2015 N 3854-U “On minimum (standard) requirements for the conditions and procedure for the implementation of certain types of voluntary insurance” - when carrying out voluntary insurance, the policyholder (person who takes out a loan and accordingly enters into an insurance contract) has the right to refuse the insurance contract and demand a full return of funds for insurance within 14 days from the moment the insurance contract is concluded or from the moment the bank or insurance organization enters the borrower into the register of insured persons. The period of 14 days is called the cooling period. In this case, it is necessary to submit a written request to the credit and insurance organizations, indicating that the insurance contract has been terminated and, accordingly, the insurance premium must be returned. In a situation where the borrower's claims are not satisfied before the trial, it is necessary to claim it in court by filing a statement of claim with the court at the place of official registration of the borrower and the territorial jurisdiction of the judicial authority.
Did the answer help you? Not really
16. If I pay, according to the writ of execution to the bailiffs, and the bank sends an SMS in the form "Cetelem Bank LLC: During the verification of information under your agreement, inconsistencies were identified. Providing fictitious personal data is a violation of the law. Today, pay the overdue debt and call back Bank 88005005509" what to do?
16.1. If you did not provide false information, then there is no need to call anywhere.
Did the answer help you? Not really
17. Cetelem Bank filed a lawsuit for the full cost of the loan, half was paid, the court is at the place of registration, I am in another city, is it possible to file an objection by e-mail so that the court decision does not come into force, and how can this be done? How can I reduce the amount? Thank you.
17.1. You can file an objection to the claim.
If you send an objection by email, it must be duplicated by sending the document by Russian Post by registered mail. It is necessary.
The amount can be reduced, but to do this you need to read the full text of the statement of claim and the calculations attached to it.
I can draw up for you an objection to the claim with all the required calculations, completely ready to be sent to court. If you need my help, write to email, the address of which is attached to my answer.
Did the answer help you? Not really
18. I took out a credit card for 10 thousand from the bank. I threw it away after 6 years. they called and said that the amount is 180 thousand interest... we have to pay. How have they not filed a lawsuit in 6 years if they have grounds? The card was issued by mail.
18.1. The creditor has the right to decide when to go to court. The expiration of the limitation period does not deprive the creditor of the right to go to court.
Did the answer help you? Not really
18.2. The statute of limitations does not automatically apply. It can only be applied by a court, and only at the request of the parties. The bank transferred money to your card, and what you did with it is your business. After throwing away the card. The meter continued to work.
Did the answer help you? Not really
19. This month I have my last installment on a car loan at Cetelem Bank. What are my next steps, given that the car dealership where the loan agreement was drawn up and the bank are in different cities?
19.1. Make your final payment. The next day after write-off, pick up the original PTS and receive a certificate of loan closure. Actually, that's all.
Did the answer help you? Not really
20. Car loan from network bank. The contract states that CASCO must be taken out for at least one year. Is it possible not to apply for the second year?
20.1. If the contract does not provide for mandatory CASCO insurance, then it is not necessary. However, if you refuse Casco insurance, you personally assume full responsibility to the bank, in the event that an accident occurs and the car loses its marketable value, and compulsory compulsory motor liability insurance does not cover the damage caused, or you are the culprit of the accident, all costs of restoring the car will be borne by owner. At the same time, the loan from the bank will not go anywhere.
Did the answer help you? Not really
21. I paid the court from my pension to Setelem Bank for 2 years, 5 thousand each. Now I’ve finished, now they’re charging me a penalty of 185 thousand. The loan itself was 200, can I somehow get out of everything and what to do? Help?
21.1. There is no need to pay the penalty voluntarily. Let the bank go to court, and in court you can declare a reduction in the amount of the penalty in accordance with Art. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Did the answer help you? Not really
21.2. in this case you do not have to pay anything. If the bank goes to court, you should submit a response to reduce the amount of the penalty, etc.
Did the answer help you? Not really
22. I took out a car loan from Cetelem Bank, except for the amount of 707,450 rubles. , which was needed to purchase a car, an amount was also added to pay for other consumer needs - 39844. The loan was repaid in full within 6 months. Can I return part of the amount for other consumer needs, since I no longer need them?
22.1. You can warn the lender about early repayment of the loan at least a month in advance.
Did the answer help you? Not really
22.2. We need to look at what these needs are? As a rule, with a car loan they impose insurance and services, where exactly did this money go?
Did the answer help you? Not really
23. I pay a car loan to Cetelem Bank, I was late in purchasing CASCO, (but bought it) I was fined 10,000 rubles. (this is stipulated in the contract and they were also offended by the fact that I did not buy insurance from their representative) the bottom line is, can the Bank remove the amount of the fine from the amount I pay on the principal debt, which I pay monthly?
23.1. Read the contract, most likely there is such a order of repayment: first legal costs, then penalties, then interest, then the principal debt. Look in the contract for the order of repayment.
Did the answer help you? Not really
24. I received an SMS from Creditexpr Debt Cetelem Bank LLC, 88OO5OO55O9 at KIF LLC, call back 88002220483, although I am not familiar with this bank at all.
24.1. We do not deal with these issues.
Did the answer help you? Not really
24.2. These are collectors. Ignore it, otherwise they may write off a large sum from your phone and the bank account linked to it.
Did the answer help you? Not really
25. I took out a loan from Setem 2014. I couldn’t pay. November 28, 2018
.learned that the debt was sold to collectors since 2015. The bank itself no longer exists. Is it possible to save the entire debt?
25.1. If 3 years have not passed since the last loan payment (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), then you will not be able to write off the debts.
Did the answer help you? Not really
When analyzing the submitted documents, it was established that the individual terms of the agreement with a specific consumer on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle included conditions that infringed on the rights of the consumer. In the agreement with the consumer Bank, the individual terms of the agreement and the total loan amount include: the amount of the loan to pay the insurance premium under the insurance agreement “GEP-insurance”, concluded between the borrower and the insurance company LLC NORD INSHUANCE (insurance premium - 5,100 rubles), the amount of the loan to pay for the cost of the “Road Assistance” service provided to the borrower by LLC “NORD INSURANCE” (insurance premium - 8,900 rubles), the amount of the loan to pay the insurance premium under the insurance contract “Protection against the loss of valuables”, concluded between the borrower and the insurance company by NORD INSHUANCE LLC (insurance premium - 2,500 rubles). According to the application for a consumer loan for a vehicle, it follows that the consumer did not want to be insured for the above services specifically in the insurance company specified in the standard form of the contract.
Since the Bank, in a loan agreement concluded with a specific consumer, insurance premiums under insurance contracts are included in the total amount of the loan, that is, paid from borrowed funds, such insurance was caused by the need to conclude a loan agreement, and not by the consumer’s need to obtain additional insurance services. The inclusion in a loan agreement of conditions that are actually conditions for obtaining a loan indicates an abuse of freedom of contract.
Based on these violations, Cetelem Bank LLC was brought to administrative liability under Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 20,000 rubles.
The bank, not agreeing with the decision, appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a statement to challenge it.
The Arbitration Court of the city of Moscow (case No. A40-103347/16) refused to satisfy the stated requirements, motivating its conclusions by the proof by the administrative body of the event and the elements of the offense, the responsibility for the commission of which is provided for in Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as well as compliance with the procedure and deadlines bringing to administrative responsibility.
The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, to which the Bank appealed, upheld the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court, and the Bank's appeal was not satisfied.
The decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court and the Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal entered into legal force.
№ – 538/2014
<адрес>DD.MM.YYYY
Dzerzhinsky District Court<адрес>consisting of:
presiding judge Popov K.B.,
under the secretary, full name 5,
having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" against FULL NAME2 for the collection of debt under a loan agreement, foreclosure on the pledged property,
U S T A N O V I L:
Cetelem Bank LLC filed a lawsuit against FULL NAME2 for the collection of debt under the loan agreement, foreclosure on the pledged property, citing in support that CB BNP Paribas Vostok LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank” / “Creditor” ) and Full Name2 (hereinafter referred to as the “Borrower”/“Defendant”) entered into an Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY (hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Agreement”), in accordance with which the Bank undertook provide the Borrower with a loan in the amount of 202,000.00 rubles for a period of 24 months with a fee for using the loan in the amount of 14.5 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Borrower agreed to repay the loan on the terms and in the manner established by the Loan Agreement. DD.MM.YYYY CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC changed its corporate name to "Setelem Bank" LLC, which was recorded in the Unified State Register legal entities(Certificate from DD.MM.YYYY series 77 No. 014387804). The targeted loan was provided to the Borrower for the purchase of a DaewooNexia car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062 and payment of the insurance premium under the Accident Insurance Agreement for individuals-borrowers dated DD.MM.YYYY, concluded between the Borrower and LLC " Insurance Company CARDIF", payment of the insurance premium under the CASCO Insurance Agreement dated DD.MM.YYYY<адрес>parts of the above Loan Agreement No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY are the Client’s Questionnaire-Application for the issuance of a loan, General terms issuance and servicing of credit products of Cetelem Bank LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “General Conditions”), the Loan Payment Schedule and the Bank’s Tariffs (hereinafter referred to as the Tariffs). DD.MM.YYYY, in order to ensure the proper fulfillment of the terms of the specified Loan Agreement between Cetelem Bank LLC and the Defendant, a Pledge Agreement for a vehicle No. (hereinafter referred to as the “Pledge Agreement”) was concluded, in accordance with which a vehicle was pledged - DaewooNexia , identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>. The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Borrower with a loan in full, which is confirmed by account statement No. 40817810704100132928. A request for full early repayment of the debt was sent to the Defendant, but has not yet been fulfilled. The Defendant's debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY to Cetelem Bank LLC is: 167,711.85 rubles, of which: the amount of the principal debt under the Loan Agreement is 157,440.64 rubles, the amount of interest for use in cash- 5345.17 rubles, the amount of interest accrued on overdue debt is 525.94 rubles. Requests the court to recover from the Defendant - FULL NAME2 in favor of Cetelem Bank LLC the debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle in the total amount of 167,711.85 rubles. To foreclose on the pledged property - vehicle DaewooNexia identification number (VEST) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>, by selling at public auction, set the initial selling price of the pledged property - a DaewooNexia vehicle identification number (VPN) XWB3r32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>, in the amount of 133,600.00 rubles. To recover from Full Name 4 the benefit of Cetelem Bank LLC the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 4,554.24 rubles.
A representative of Cetelem Bank LLC did not appear at the court hearing and submitted an application to consider the case in his absence.
The defendant, FULL NAME2, did not appear at the court hearing, was notified of the date and time of the court hearing in a timely and proper manner, did not inform the court of the reason for his failure to appear, and did not provide any objections to the claim. Earlier at the court hearing, he provided the original receipt confirming partial repayment of the debt in the amount of 50,000 rubles.
The court, having examined the written materials of the case, finds the claims subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.
By virtue of clause 1, part 1, article 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, civil rights and obligations arise from contracts and other transactions provided for by law, as well as from contracts and other transactions, although not provided for by law, but not contrary to it.
According to Article 307 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, by virtue of an obligation, one person (debtor) is obliged to perform a certain action in favor of another person (creditor), and the creditor has the right to demand that the debtor fulfill his obligation.
In accordance with Articles 309, 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be fulfilled properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, other legal acts, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements - in accordance with business customs and other usually imposed requirements. Unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and unilateral change of its terms are not allowed.
In accordance with Article 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a loan agreement, a bank or other credit organization (lender) undertakes to provide funds (loan) to the borrower in the amount and on the terms stipulated by the agreement, and the borrower undertakes to return the amount received and pay interest on it.
Based on Article 432 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement is considered concluded if an agreement is reached between the parties, in the form required in appropriate cases, on all the essential terms of the agreement. Essential are the conditions on the subject of the contract, the conditions that are named in the law or other legal acts as essential or necessary for contracts of this type, as well as all those conditions regarding which, at the request of one of the parties, an agreement must be reached.
The court established.
CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"/"Creditor") and Full Name2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Borrower"/"Defendant") entered into an Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD. MM.YYYY (hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Agreement”), according to which the Bank undertook to provide the Borrower with a loan in the amount of 202,000.00 rubles for a period of 24 months, charging a fee for using the loan in the amount of 14.5 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Borrower undertook to repay the loan for conditions and in the manner established by the Loan Agreement.
DD.MM.YYYY CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC changed its corporate name to "Setelem Bank" LLC, which was recorded in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (Certificate from DD.MM.YYYY series 77 No. 014387804).
The targeted loan was provided to the Borrower for the purchase of a DaewooNexia car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062 and payment of the insurance premium under the Accident Insurance Agreement for individuals-borrowers dated DD.MM.YYYY, concluded between the Borrower and CARDIF Insurance Company LLC, payment insurance premium under the CASCO insurance contract from DD.MM.YYYY
Integral parts of the above Loan Agreement No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY are the Client's Questionnaire-Application for a loan, General conditions for issuing and servicing credit products of Cetelem Bank LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “General Conditions”), Loan payment schedule and Tariffs Bank (hereinafter - Tariffs).
DD.MM.YYYY, in order to ensure the proper fulfillment of the terms of the specified Loan Agreement between Cetelem Bank LLC and the Defendant, a Pledge Agreement for a vehicle No. (hereinafter referred to as the “Pledge Agreement”) was concluded, in accordance with which a vehicle was pledged - DaewooNexia , identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>.
The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Borrower with a loan in full, which is confirmed by account statement No. 40817810704100132928.
A request for full early repayment of the debt was sent to the Defendant, but has not yet been fulfilled.
The Defendant's debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY to Cetelem Bank LLC is: 167,711.85 rubles, of which: the amount of the principal debt under the Loan Agreement is 157,440.64 rubles, the amount of interest for use in cash - 5345.17 rubles, the amount of interest accrued on overdue debt is 525.94 rubles.
In accordance with Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules provided for by the provisions on the Loan apply to relations under the loan agreement. In accordance with Art. 810 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation The borrower is obliged to return to the lender the received loan amount on time and in the manner prescribed by the loan agreement.
According to Part 2 of Art. 811 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in installments (in installments), then if the borrower violates the deadline established for the return of the next part of the loan, the lender has the right to demand early repayment of the entire remaining loan amount along with the interest due.
According to Art. 309 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be fulfilled properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation.
Thus, at the court hearing it was established that the Defendant’s debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY to Cetelem Bank LLC amounts to 167,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
Taking into account the above requirements of the law, the circumstances of the case established at the court hearing, the court considers the claims for collection of debt under the loan agreement to be justified and subject to satisfaction, in part.
As established at the court hearing, the plaintiff, during the consideration of the case, voluntarily fulfilled his obligations, paid the debt under the loan agreement in the amount of 50,000 rubles, which is confirmed by the receipt cash order No. from DD.MM.YYYY
Consequently, the debt to the bank after the plaintiff’s partial fulfillment of his obligations amounts to 117,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
If the Borrower violates its obligations under the agreement, the Bank has the right to foreclose on the pledged property and sell it.
Taking into account the above circumstances, the court considers it necessary to satisfy the plaintiff’s demands to foreclose on the pledged property - a DaewooNexia model car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, the owner of which is currently FULL NAME2
As follows from the conclusion on the revaluation of the market value of the vehicle, the market value of the pledged vehicle was 167,000 rubles.
Thus, taking into account the terms of the pledge agreement, which provide for the initial sale price as 80% of the market value, the initial sale price of the vehicle is 133,600 rubles.
Due to the lack of objections from the defendant, the court considers it necessary to determine the initial selling price of the car in the amount of 133,600 rubles.
In accordance with Art. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court orders the party in whose favor the court decision to reimburse the other party for all legal expenses incurred in the case in proportion to the claims satisfied.
The court found that when filing a claim, the plaintiff paid a state fee in the amount of 4,554 rubles 24 kopecks, which is confirmed by a payment order.
Since the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant are partially satisfied, then 3,554 rubles 23 kopecks must be recovered from the defendant, FULL NAME2, in favor of Cetelem Bank LLC to reimburse the costs of paying the state duty.
Guided by articles 194-199 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court
the claims of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" against FULL NAME2 for the collection of debt under the loan agreement, foreclosure on the pledged property - partially satisfied.
Collect from Full Name2 the debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 117,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
To foreclose on the mortgaged property - a car model DaewooNexia, identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, owned by FULL NAME2, establishing the sale price of the car in the amount of 133,600 rubles.
To recover from FULL NAME2 in favor of the Limited Liability Company “Cetelem Bank”, to reimburse the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 3554 rubles 23 kopecks.
The rest of the claims of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" against FULL NAME2 for the collection of debt under the loan agreement and legal costs are rejected.
The decision can be appealed through the Dzerzhinsky District Court<адрес>in the Volgograd Regional Court within a month from the date of the final court decision.
The final form of the decision was made by DD.MM.YYYY.
Do you think you are Russian? Were you born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is wrong.
Are you actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian? But do you think that you are a Jew?
Game? Wrong word. The correct word is “imprinting”.
The newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living creatures with vision.
Newborns in the USSR saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time during the first few days, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. The technique is wild in its essence and effectiveness.
Throughout your childhood, you wondered why you lived surrounded by strangers. The rare Jews on your way could do whatever they wanted with you, because you were drawn to them, and pushed others away. Yes, even now they can.
You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It’s difficult to understand; the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate it. From that moment, no words or details were preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider to be your own.
3 commentsSystem and observer
Let's define a system as an object whose existence is beyond doubt.
An observer of a system is an object that is not part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence through factors independent of the system.
The observer, from the point of view of the system, is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a cause-and-effect relationship with the system.
An internal observer is an object potentially accessible to the system in relation to which inversion of observation and control channels is possible.
An external observer is an object, even potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the system’s event horizon (spatial and temporal).
Hypothesis No. 1. All-seeing eye
Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can occur, for example, with the help of “gravitational radiation” penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The cross section of the capture of “gravitational radiation” is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the “shadow” from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the “shadow”.
The capture of “gravitational radiation” by an object increases its chaos and is perceived by us as the passage of time. An object opaque to “gravitational radiation”, the capture cross section of which is larger than its geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.
Hypothesis No. 2. Inner Observer
It is possible that our universe is observing itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles separated in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, reaching its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means that there is no capture cross section on the trajectories of objects that is large enough to absorb these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:
Time flow
An outside observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the determining factor of time in the universe is an “external observer,” will slow down exactly twice - the shadow of the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation.” If the determining factor is the “internal observer,” then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.
It is also possible that these hypotheses can be combined in one proportion or another.
