1. Clarification of claims violates Arts. 274 III and 276 III EPC.

The facts of the case

The bank asked the court to recover from the defendant the loan (credit) debt and to enforce the property pledged and acquired at the expense of the credit.

The court of first instance determined to recover from the defendant and the co-defendant the loan debt jointly and severally and to enforce the pledged property.

The court of appeal instance, having considered the application on clarification of claims and an increase in the amount thereof, recovered the loan debt from the defendants jointly and severally and enforced the pledged property.

The Supreme Court’s position

Although the bank did not ask to collect the loan debt from the defendants jointly and severally, the court of first instance made mistake when determining its joint and several collection.

The court of appeal instance violated Arts. 274 III and 276 III EPC by rendering a decision on new claims not presented by the bank and not tried in the court of first instance, namely, by establishing that the bank’s application on clarification of claims and an increase in the amount thereof did not contain new the subject matter of the claim.

The court of appeal instance did not specify the existing debt on the loan at the time of filing the claim and the remaining debt at the time of handing down the decision by applying to the Central Bank of RUz. On the basis of one-sided information submitted by the bank, the court prematurely concluded that the loan debt was to be collected.

The case was sent to the court of first instance for a new trial (remanded).