The principle of accessoriness of suretyship in judicial practice

This article is dedicated to the examination of current issues related to the application of methods for securing the performance of obligations. Particular attention is given to establishing the legal essence of the principle of accessoriness, which enables the author to determine the legal consequences of the invalidity and termination of the primary contract (obligation) on the validity of the corresponding security obligations, particularly suretyship. The article explores the legal nature of suretyship as an accessory obligation, its interrelation with the primary debt obligation, and the legal consequences of the surety’s fulfillment of its duties. Special focus is placed on the specifics of the termination of suretyship and the impact of transactions related to the primary contract on its validity. The study analyzes judicial practice, including the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the principle of accessoriness in cases of termination of the primary obligation, substitution of the debtor, or the creditor’s failure to timely submit claims against the debtor’s heirs. Additionally, the legal consequences of the invalidity of the primary obligation for security transactions, as established in Article 548 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, are examined. The study defines the scientific concept of the «principle of accessoriness of suretyship,» emphasizing its legal dependence on the primary contract. It is substantiated that a security obligation cannot exist independently, and its legal effects depend on the validity or termination of the primary contract. The research concludes that the consequences of a creditor’s failure to meet the deadlines for submitting claims against the debtor’s heirs highlight the importance of the timely protection of their rights. According to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, if the creditor fails to meet such deadlines, the primary obligation is terminated, and consequently, the suretyship is also extinguished, aligning with the principle of accessoriness. The conclusions drawn in the study are significant for improving judicial practice and further developing the legal regulation of security obligations.