Point of law: whether drafting of a single document signed by the parties is the only confirmation of the fact that the written form of credit contract has been observed?

Alternative views: 1) the requirement of a written form means drafting a single document, and the subsequent approval of a transaction whose form was defective is not permissible; or 2) the formalization of contractual relations relating to a bank credit is not confined to making one document (credit contract) by the parties, but may also be performed by means of the exchange of documents via postal, electronic, and other communications, enabling it to be reliably established that the document comes from a party under the contract; or 3) if an improper formalization of credit contract is caused by unfair acts of the borrower who has received and accepted the performance of the creditor, but has failed to perform his own obligations with regard to the repayment of the amount of credit and the interest accrued, his action aimed at invalidation of the credit transaction on the grounds of the flawed form must be qualified under para 1 of Art 10 of the Civil Code as an abuse of right, so that the defence of his right must not be granted.

Ratio decidendi: the third view is legally correct. At the same time, the Presidium emphasized that a flaw in the underlying principal obligation (credit contract) shall not necessarily entail the invalidity of a derivative obligation (e.g. a suretyship).

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.