Publication date: 15.07.2025
Hryhorenko Andrii – an attorney specializing in intellectual property rights protection, debt collection, and litigation. He has significant experience representing clients' interests in commercial, administrative, and local general courts of all instances. His main specialization is the legal protection and defense of intellectual property rights, as well as the comprehensive protection of intellectual property objects.
Input Data:
The client faced aggressive and, as it turned out, unlawful collection of overdue credit debt by Limited Liability Company "Collect Center." This situation was particularly difficult, as the court of first instance had already fully satisfied the collection company's claim, obliging the client to pay a significant amount: 91,206.81 UAH of principal debt, 3,028 UAH of court fees, and 4,000 UAH for professional legal assistance provided to the plaintiff.
Such a decision created an extremely unfavorable financial and psychological situation for the client, as he found himself under the threat of forced debt collection based on a court act that the client considered unfair and unsubstantiated. The problem lay not only in the large sum but also in the very unlawfulness of the demand, which required immediate and qualified legal intervention.
Problem:
A deep analysis of the situation, conducted after the client's appeal, revealed key violations that fundamentally changed the legal picture. It was established that the client had no actual debt to the original creditor. Moreover, further verification confirmed that the client had a significant overpayment to the original creditor. This meant that the collection company LLC "Collect Center," which claimed to have acquired the right of claim under the credit agreement, had no legal grounds whatsoever to accrue and collect any debt from the client.
The decision of the court of first instance was made without proper consideration of these circumstances, possibly due to insufficient representation of the client's interests at that stage or insufficient examination of evidence. Collection companies often rely on formal proof of assignment of claim rights, without delving into primary financial calculations, and this became a key weakness of their position. The violation was precisely the unlawful attempt to collect funds that did not actually exist, as well as the unsubstantiated nature of the court of first instance's decision.
Desired Outcome:
Full annulment of the first instance court's decision, release of the client from unsubstantiated debt, and protection of his financial rights from unscrupulous actions of collectors.
Responsible Lawyer:
(Not specified in the case text who the responsible lawyer is)
Solution:
The lawyer entered the case at the appellate stage, which became the only chance for the client to overturn the unfair decision and protect his financial interests. The strategy consisted of building an unshakeable legal position based on undeniable evidence.
- Deep and comprehensive analysis of credit history and financial transactions.
A meticulous review was conducted of all payments made by the client to the original creditor, as well as the terms of the original credit agreement and all documents regarding the assignment of the right of claim to LLC "Collect Center." The goal was to identify the fact of overpayment and confirm the absence of debt. - Formulation of a clear and substantiated legal position.
Based on the gathered evidence, the lawyer formulated arguments about the complete absence of legal grounds for debt collection by LLC "Collect Center." This included references to norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine (in particular, regarding the fulfillment of obligations) and provisions on the improper nature of the collection party. - Effective representation of the client's interests in the court of appeal.
The lawyer actively presented the client's arguments before the appellate court, demonstrating evidence of overpayment and the legal invalidity of the collection company's demands. During court hearings, it was explained in detail to the judges why the first instance decision was erroneous and did not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case and the norms of substantive law. It was emphasized that the plaintiff had not proven its right of claim with proper and admissible evidence.
Result: The appellate court (case № 279/2041/24) fully supported the lawyer's position and overturned the first instance court's decision. The appellate court established the absence of legal grounds for LLC "Collect Center" to accrue and collect any debt from the client. The client was completely released from the obligation to pay 91,206.81 UAH of debt, 3,028 UAH of court fees, and 4,000 UAH of legal assistance costs to the collectors.
This decision fully protected the client's financial interests and confirmed the unlawfulness of the claims. The case is a vivid confirmation that even after an unfavorable first instance court decision, qualified legal assistance at the appellate stage is crucial for restoring justice. It demonstrates that citizens have effective tools to protect against unfounded collections and unscrupulous actions of collection companies, and a professional lawyer can change the course of a case in the client's favor, ensuring adherence to the rule of law.
