SUPREME COURT : TIME-OUT IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT EXCLUDE RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEBTOR'S DEPARTURE FROM THE COUNTRY

The Supreme Court of Russia recalled that the suspension of enforcement proceedings in itself does not exclude the restriction of the debtor to leave the country and does not apply to enforcement measures. The corresponding conclusion is contained in the ruling on the case of citizen Oleg Fedorov.

So, in relation to the man, since the summer of 2020, there has been a consolidated enforcement proceeding on the issue of debt. In the spring of 2021, a procedure for restructuring his debts was introduced, and all enforcement proceedings, with the exception of the only one related to alimony, were suspended until July 2 of this year.

As part of the consolidated enforcement proceedings, the bailiff forbade Fedorov to leave Russia for six months, by which time the citizen still had debts. He considered such restriction illegal and appealed to the court with the corresponding statement. The court of first instance did not satisfy the claim, the regional court was in solidarity with him. The authorities argued their decision by the fact that the restriction on the debtor's departure from the country is one of the types of actions permissible with such a timeout.

Then the man wrote a complaint to the Third Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction. He said that the authorities violate his constitutional rights. The court declared the ban on leaving the country illegal and pointed out the mistakes of the authorities considering the case before. The bailiffs department reacted to this, which appealed to the Supreme Court with a cassation appeal. The Supreme Court recalled that the bailiff may issue a temporary restriction on the debtor's departure from the country if he does not comply with the requirements within the prescribed time. We are talking about amounts exceeding 30 thousand rubles.

They also stressed that the enforcement actions are those that are taken by the bailiff within the framework of the law in order to create conditions for the inclusion of enforcement measures. Before the resumption of the proceedings, the use of the latter is not allowed, and the time-out itself does not exclude the possibility of limiting the debtor's right to leave the country. Such a ban is one of the types of enforcement actions, and not a measure of enforcement.

The Supreme Court added that it is important to take into account the proportionality of the enforcement actions applied to the debtor and the degree of activity of his evasion from voluntary fulfillment of obligations. The cassation did not do this, they did not take into account that the debtor is doing everything possible to properly fulfill the requirements and regularly repays the alimony debt. The Supreme Court concluded that the court of cassation instance in this case did not give enough arguments about the errors of the lower courts, canceled the cassation ruling, sending the administrative case to the Third CCOI for a new examination.

Photo: Freepik