Point of law: 1) how is limited the right of the pledgeholder to reduce 10-days period of time which the law gives him in order to cease the sale of the object of pledge by performing the obligation which has been secured by the pledge? 2) whether an executive note of the notary is required for the purposes of compulsory levy of execution on the object of pledge (securities), given that the depositary and pledgeholder are different persons?

Ratio decidendi: the Presidium decided that: 1) the period in question may not be reduced to the extent capable of depriving the pledgor of the opportunity to take advantage of the right, which has been conferred upon him by law, to perform his obligation and thus cease the realisation of the pledged property. A material and unjustified reduction of the aforementioned period by the pledgeholder might testify to the fact that the real purpose of the pledgeholder was not the satisfaction of the creditor’s demands secured by the pledge, but an acquisition of the right of ownership to the pledged property on non-market terms. Turning the object of pledge into the ownership of the pledgeholder as a way of realisation of the pledged property is potentially detrimental to the pledgor, because it precludes the application of general rules on satisfying the demands of pledgeholder which guarantee the observance of pledgor’s interests (the sale of the object of pledge, the satisfaction of creditor’s demands out of the monies received, and the transfer of the remaining amount to the pledgor). Therefore, a recovery outside court procedure, as implying the lack of control on the part of a court, and subsequent realisation of the pledged property by the pledgeholder in this particular way require from the latter a maximum prudence and good faith, including due regard to the legitimate interests and expectations of the pledgor; and 2) in this situation the pledgeholder had no right to withhold the securities for himself without notary’s making an executive note, whereas the depositary ought not to execute the respective orders of the pledgeholder, because he ought to ascertain that  the demands of the pledgeholder were being executed on the basis of an executive note of a notary. The violation of this duty by the depositary gives to the pledgor the right to claim damages from the depositary.  

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.