In the first review of the Supreme Court practice in 2017 the following decisions deserve particular attention:

- if a debt in nominated in a foreign currency, the interest on it under Article 395 of the Civil Code shall be calculated in accordance with Central Bank average interest rate for short-term credits; if this rate is not published yet, then the average rate for short-term currency credits shall apply, and it must be confirmed by the statement of a leading bank at the place of creditor’s sojourn (this issue remained unresolved for a long time both in law and judicial practice);

- the risks of fluctuations in the exchange rate of foreign currency lie with the borrower under  a credit contract: the repayment of the amount of loan should be made in the very currency which is indicated in the contract; the fact that the borrower is mother of a large family and unemployed may not be regarded as a material change of circumstances, because it does not prove that the plaintiff is deprived of what she might have expected when signing the contract;

- consumer protection laws shall not apply to disputes between banks and depositors, as long as their relations are regulated by the Civil Code and bank account contracts;

- if the person who seeks in court to reverse a judicial decision on the ground of a ECHR judgment failed to enclose with his application the text of judgment’s unofficial Russian translation, the court must nonetheless proceed with such application. At the same time, the judge should, upon a motion of a party or at his own accord, apply to the representative of Russia at the ECHR, asking him to provide a translation of the respective judgment;

- if jurors found the accused to be guilty, but deserving lenience, the court, when delivering its sentence, should not take aggravating circumstances into account.