1. Any change (including repayment period extension) in the terms of the main obligation, other than increase in the debt amount, introduced without the surety’s consent does not prima facie result in an increase in the surety’s liability or any other adverse consequences which serves the basis for termination of the suretyship.

2. When the suretyship term is ‘until the full execution of the main obligation’, it shall be terminated unless the creditor brings a court claim against the surety within a year from the maturity date of the final instalment of the main obligation.

The Supreme Court’s position

[The court has cited Art 298 I* CC and Nr 34 RPL dd 22 December 2006 No 13/150.] With an additional agreement to the loan agreement, the term for performing the main obligation secured by the suretyship was extended from 60 to 84 months. However, since the amount of the suretyship remained unchanged, the claimant (the surety) did not prove that such a change resulted in an increase in its liability or any other adverse consequences. Due to a lack of grounds for terminating the suretyship agreement, the courts correctly rejected the claim. In this case, introducing changes to the loan agreement through the additional agreement without the claimant’s consent cannot be a basis for terminating the suretyship.

The suretyship agreement does not stipulate the duration of the suretyship. As per Clause 4.1 the suretyship agreement it is effective from the moment of signing by all parties and remains valid until the full execution of obligations under the loan agreement. Furthermore, the extension of the repayment period for the principal debt did not result in an increase in the liability of the claimant under the surety agreement. [The court has cited Art 298 III CC**.] The claim of the surety was based on the fact that the amendment to the loan agreement created an inconvenience for the surety. The bank initiated legal proceedings without the final repayment deadline having been reached due to the debtor’s failure to adhere to the payment schedule. The bank sought to recover the loan debt from both the debtor and the surety. In other words, the bank, as a creditor, filed a claim against the debtor and the surety within a period not exceeding one year from the date of maturity of the obligation secured by the suretyship.

————————————

*) This article is critiqued to be too rigorous. Cf le système de la réductibilité in which the court has a specific power to adapt the contract when it becomes ‘more onerous’ (De Page, t. II, no 467, litt. B and t. XI, no 865 ; no 128) due to the accessory character of the suretyship. For the textual representation of such doctrine generally see Art 367 II ГК РФ, Nr 23 RPL RF dd 24 December 2020 No 45 with comments of Sergie Sarbash, Поручительство: комментарий к постановлению Пленума ВС РФ от 24 декабря 2020 г. № 45 (Statut 2021), 231-4; art 2296 (modifié par Ordonnance n°2021-1192 du 15 septembre 2021) du Code civil ‘Le cautionnement ne peut excéder ce qui est dû par le débiteur ni être contracté sous des conditions plus onéreuses, sous peine d’être réduit à la mesure de l’obligation garantie’, art 2013 al 3ème du Code civil belge ‘Le cautionnement qui excède la dette, ou qui est contracté sous des conditions plus onéreuses, n’est point nul; il est seulement réductible à la mesure de l’obligation principale’. See also Cour de Cassation, Chambre civile 1, du 2 mai 1989, 87-17.599 and Chambre commerciale, du 1 juillet 1997, 95-14.574 cited in Philippe Simler, Philippe Delebecque Les sûretés, La publicité foncière (Dalloz 2012) and Cour d’appel de Basse-Terre du 25 avril 2022, 21/002121.

**) Cf art 510 III CO ‘La caution qui ne s’est engagée que pour un temps déterminé est libérée, si le créancier ne poursuit pas juridiquement l’exécution de ses droits dans les quatre semaines qui suivent l’expiration de ce temps et s’il ne continue ses poursuites sans interruption notable’. ATF 125 III 435 cosid. 2 a) bb): ‘En cas de doute, le cautionnement est présumé avoir été donné pour un temps indéterminé, ce qui est conforme à sa fonction de garantie. Il appartient donc à la caution d’établir les circonstances propres à infirmer cette présomption’.