Summary

The latest Supreme Court decisions on important issues relating to claims guarantees may lead to the question of whether a claims guarantee can really be considered a non-accessory security. There is no doubt that the purpose of a claims guarantee is to be a non-accessory security instrument. Judicial practice has made the limits of admissibility of filing a claim under the claims guarantee clearer and by that, Estonian practice has taken a step closer to the underlying principles of a claims guarantee that has developed in continental Europe and common law countries. The article covers the issue of how a doctrine of abuse of rights arising from claims guarantee has been defined in international practice.