It is known that our citizens defend their rights in court and try to accept credit contracts invalid. Many claims were based on the absence of the bank's individual license to issue currency credit. Quite often referred to borrowers and the lack of spouse's consent for a loan. However, October 7, 2010 the Trial Chamber on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court held a generalization of the judicial practice of considering civil cases arising from the credit relationship (2009-2010). On this occasion, the highest judicial body said that in the event of a bank corresponding to the general license and written permission of the National Bank Ukraine, the implementation of credit transactions in the currency does not contradict the requirements of current legislation of Ukraine. In summary also noted that, in challenging credit agreements other spouse must be borne in mind that loan agreement does not create obligations for the other spouse, but only to the borrower, as part of the contract (part 1 of article.

1054 Civil Code). That is, in his view, the absence of a bank to issue an individual license Monetary and credit provision of the agreement other spouse to obtain a loan may not be grounds for declaring the contract null and void the credit. In this case, attention was focused on a number of other requirements which must comply with the contract. For example, the term of the contract should be discharged in strict accordance with Art. 252 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

According to this norm term is defined in years, months, weeks, days or hours. The term is defined by a calendar date or an indication of an event that must inevitably occur. Therefore, the stipulation that it is valid until the parties in implementing the commitments, contrary to these requirements. Everyone knows that time is one of the essential conditions of any contract. A contract is concluded, if the parties in due form have agreed on all essential terms contract (part 1 of article. 638 Civil Code of Ukraine). Consequently, the lack of well-defined period may be grounds for the recognition of credits concluded. Recognition of credit agreement not concluded to be distinguished from recognition of the loan agreement null and void. These are different things. The order of their evidence and legal implications also have their differences. Thus, in contrast to a claim for recognition of credit agreement null and void claim on the recognition of a loan agreement not concluded does not correspond to how to protect civil rights and interests referred to in Art. 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Consequently, the requirement for recognition loan agreement not concluded by the court will not be satisfied. To establish the fact that the loan agreement is not concluded, the subject of the claim, you can specify a different requirement, which meets the ways of protection. This may be a requirement for recognition of loan agreement null and void. In this case, the court in the operative part of the decision will indicate to deny the claim, but in the reasoning part indicates that the loan agreement is concluded. As regards the legal consequences of recognition of credit agreement not concluded, the letter of the Supreme Court of Ukraine from 24.11.2008 years "Practice of examination by courts of Civil Affairs on the recognition of transactions invalid "indicates that failure to conclude a treaty does not give rise to rights and obligations of the parties. Information provided by a private lawyer and the lawyer.