DENIAL OF CREDIT: BASES AND IMPLICATIONS

In article the bases for refusal in granting the credit and also his consequence are analyzed. Actions of bank for refusal of granting the credit in general should be classified as unilateral cancellation of the credit agreement while failure to provide a part of the credit within the credit agreement - as unilateral change of his conditions. Other conclusion can be drawn in case of refusal bank in granting a tranche within the contract on opening of a credit line. The general agreement on opening of a credit line can be constructed on two models. The first assumes fixing at bank of a duty to issue the credits according to the first requirement of the borrower. In this case the borrower has sekundarny rights to demand granting money in a size necessary for him (in the limits set in the frame contract). The second model is characterized by the fact that credit lines, in fact, are «soft» frame contracts in which the credit limit is fixed, but allocation of concrete trenches is made according to the application of the borrower provided that the bank expresses the consent (that is, in fact, the agreement on allocation of the next credit is formed). In such contracts neither the borrower is obliged to take the credit, nor the bank is obliged to give him, consent on allocation of the credit won’t be reached yet. However even in the presence in the contract of the formal bases for refusal in granting the credit (the next tranche), the court will estimate behavior of credit institution in essence in each case. Thus, it is possible to claim that freedom in realization of the right of bank for refusal of the credit agreement or on unilateral change of his conditions, is limited to requirements of rationality and conscientiousness. As a result of the conducted research the author has come to a conclusion that credit institutions within already signed credit agreement can refuse issuance of credit (tranche) only in the presence of the circumstances provided by the law, and with borrowers legal entities - also the contract. At realization of the right for unilateral refusal they have to be guided by requirements of rationality and conscientiousness. If the right of the borrower for receiving the credit has been violated, he can demand from bank of compensation of losses. The satisfaction of other requirements directed to protection of the violated rights is represented to less perspective.

the credit, the credit contract, the contract on opening of a credit line, refusal in granting the credit, bank, the borrower

1. постановление ФАС Восточно-Сибирского округа от 02.07.2007 по делу № А69-24/07-Ф02-3869/07

2. апелляционное определение Курганского областного суда от 28.05.2015 по делу № 33-1544/2015

3. Витрянский В. В. Проблемы заключения и исполнения кредитного договора // Приложение к журналу «Хозяйство и право». - 2004. - № 11.

4. Ефимова Л. Г. Рамочные договоры на внебиржевом межбанковском рынке ценных бумаг // Законы России: опыт, анализ, практика. - 2006. - № 7.

5. Карапетов А. Г. Опцион на заключение договора и опционный договор согласно новой редакции ГК РФ // Вестник экономического правосудия Российской Федерации. - 2016. - № 3.

6. Карапетов А. Г., Савельев А. И. Свобода договора и ее пределы. - М. : Статут, 2012. - Т. 1.

7. Маилян Г. Э. Генеральное соглашение об открытии кредитной линии как рамочный (организационный) договор // Юрист. - 2015. - № 13.

8. Малахов П. Уступка права требования по кредитному договору // ЭЖ-юрист. - 2005. - № 39.

9. Михеева И. Е. Исполнение обязательств по кредитному договору в свете судебной практики // Предпринимательское право. - 2017. - № 2.

10. Новоселова Л. А. Проценты по денежным обязательствам. - М. : Статут, 2003.

11. Сиземова О. Б. О наиболее актуальных проблемах банковского кредитования // Банковское право. - 2017. - № 2.

12. Соломин С. К. Банковский кредит: проблемы теории и практики. - М., 2009.

13. постановление ФАС Московского округа от 25.03.2011 № КГ-А40/1415-11 по делу ^ № А40-42333/10-97-359

14. информационное письмо Президиума Высшего Арбитраж- О ного Суда РФ от 13.09.2011 № 147

15. определение Высшего Арбитражного Суда РФ от □ 19.04.2013 № ВАС-1690/13 по делу № А56-56851/2011

16. постановление Арбитражного суда Московского округа от 06.03.2015 № Ф05-17201/2014 по делу № А40-85324/14.

17. постановление Арбитражного суда Московского округа от 6 марта 2015 г. № Ф05-17201/2014 по делу № А40-85324/14

18. определение Верховного Суда РФ от 29.06.2015 № 305-ЭС15-6670 по делу № А40-85324/2014