On the question of the currency of payment for obligations in the sphere of foreign economic activities

The article is devoted to issues of the application of currency and civil/economic legislation of Ukraine in the consideration of economic disputes, in particular the possibility of satisfaction by the economic courts of Ukraine of non-resident claims regarding the collection of debts in Ukrainian hryvnias from resident debtors, if such debts are payable in foreign currency under the terms of foreign economic contracts. Using the example of a specific court case, the author analyzes the provisions of national contract law, including the principles of freedom of contract, the binding nature of its terms, the stability and predictability of contractual relations, as well as banking legislation of Ukraine, which regulates the status of national and foreign currency. The author emphasizes that if the parties define a foreign currency as the currency of payment in the contract, the admissibility of its replacement in the performance of the obligation, in particular, in the case of forced collection of funds by the court, to the legal tender of the country of the court can take place only with the consent of the debtor, and not at the will of the creditor. This is due to the fact that the legal tender according to the relevant norms of the current legislation is mandatory for acceptance, and not for demand, which characterizes the obligations of the creditor and the rights of the debtor, and not vice versa. At the same time, it is noted that the court’s refusal to collect the debt due to the plaintiff’s incorrect indication of the currency of the collection does not prevent the further protection of the creditor’s rights, and therefore the principle of the obligation of the terms of the contract should be given priority over the question of the effectiveness of the court’s protection of the right (in terms of quick and final resolution of the legal dispute, with less attention to the parties’ formal objections). As a result, the author concludes that the court’s agreement with the creditor’s position about the possibility of debt collection in a currency other than the one in which the debt was payable according to the contract cannot be considered sufficiently justified. At the same time, it was emphasized that the currency and civil legislation of Ukraine in this matter deserves to be clarified to avoid controversial situations between business entities.