RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
28/04/2024
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
28 April 
1970 World Labor Safety Day
1970 World Labor Safety Day
1970 The Italian dictator Benito Mussollini and his lover, Clara Petacci, were executed
1970 The Italian dictator Benito Mussollini and his lover, Clara Petacci, were executed
1970 The capture of Milan by the troops of Suvorov
1970 The capture of Milan by the troops of Suvorov
28 April
1970 World Labor Safety Day
1970 World Labor Safety Day
1970 The Italian dictator Benito Mussollini and his lover, Clara Petacci, were executed
1970 The Italian dictator Benito Mussollini and his lover, Clara Petacci, were executed
1970 The capture of Milan by the troops of Suvorov
1970 The capture of Milan by the troops of Suvorov
THE SUPREME COURT HAS DEALT WITH THE TIMING OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION FOR AN INDEFINITE SETTLEMENT
In 2015, the debtor and the recoverer entered into a settlement agreement, according to which the former assumed the obligation to transfer real estate objects to the recoverer without specifying the transfer period. He transferred one facility in 2016, after which he stopped fulfilling his obligations under the agreement. The recoverer received the enforcement document only in 2022, enforcement proceedings were initiated against the debtor.
Disagreeing with the actions of the bailiff, the debtor appealed to the court to declare them illegal, pointing out that enforcement proceedings were initiated six years after the entry into force of the judicial act approving the settlement agreement.
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the debtor's claims, noting that the writ of execution specified a three-year deadline for submission to execution. Accordingly, the actions of the bailiff do not contradict the law.
The Court of Appeal supported the lower court, additionally noting that the settlement agreement does not contain an indication of the time limit for the execution of executive actions. Thus, the deadline for the presentation of the enforcement document must be considered from the moment the claimant applies to the court for it.
The cassation also canceled the judicial acts of lower instances and satisfied the debtor's claims. The District Court indicated that the bailiff should have refused to initiate enforcement proceedings. In the event that the settlement agreement does not set a deadline for its execution, the recoverer may require the debtor to fulfill the obligation immediately after the agreement enters into force. The writ of execution was presented in violation of the three-year term.
The claimant filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which agreed with his arguments. The debtor had only partially fulfilled its obligations and had no intention of fulfilling them further. Moreover, in 2021, the debtor appealed the court's decision to approve the agreement. The Supreme Court noted (Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 12/14/2023 in case No. A76-23195/2022 (No. 309-ES23-13623)) that the cassation created legal uncertainty, since in another case the courts had already confirmed the compliance of the claimant with the deadlines for the presentation of the enforcement document.
Photo: Freepik
Disagreeing with the actions of the bailiff, the debtor appealed to the court to declare them illegal, pointing out that enforcement proceedings were initiated six years after the entry into force of the judicial act approving the settlement agreement.
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the debtor's claims, noting that the writ of execution specified a three-year deadline for submission to execution. Accordingly, the actions of the bailiff do not contradict the law.
The Court of Appeal supported the lower court, additionally noting that the settlement agreement does not contain an indication of the time limit for the execution of executive actions. Thus, the deadline for the presentation of the enforcement document must be considered from the moment the claimant applies to the court for it.
The cassation also canceled the judicial acts of lower instances and satisfied the debtor's claims. The District Court indicated that the bailiff should have refused to initiate enforcement proceedings. In the event that the settlement agreement does not set a deadline for its execution, the recoverer may require the debtor to fulfill the obligation immediately after the agreement enters into force. The writ of execution was presented in violation of the three-year term.
The claimant filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which agreed with his arguments. The debtor had only partially fulfilled its obligations and had no intention of fulfilling them further. Moreover, in 2021, the debtor appealed the court's decision to approve the agreement. The Supreme Court noted (Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 12/14/2023 in case No. A76-23195/2022 (No. 309-ES23-13623)) that the cassation created legal uncertainty, since in another case the courts had already confirmed the compliance of the claimant with the deadlines for the presentation of the enforcement document.
Photo: Freepik
21.12.2023
