CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 2 March 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65095/19 Vadym Eduardovych POLEVOY against Ukraine lodged on 9 December 2019 communicated on 13 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, acting as a guarantor for a loan contracted by his then-wife, made a payment to a bank to cover the relevant part of the loan. Having subsequently discovered that the bank had increased the interest rate without informing him, he obtained a final judicial decision recognising the guarantee agreement as terminated several years before the aforementioned payment. Relying on that decision, the applicant lodged a civil claim against the bank seeking recovery of the sum paid, under Article 1212 of the Civil Code (that is, as received without lawful basis). His claim was rejected on the grounds that the legal provision in question was not applicable to the applicant’s situation, which was rather regulated by the contractual obligations. The domestic courts allegedly failed to respond to the applicant’s argument that no contractual obligations could have possibly stemmed from the agreement considered terminated years before the events. In the applicant’s view, the circumstances of his case disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations? In particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions and were their decisions “arbitrary” and/or “manifestly unreasonable” (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no.   22251/08, §§ 61‑64, ECHR 2015)?   2.     Has there been a violation of   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case?