Protection of Rights

In the enforcement proceedings as such, there is no concept of " limitation period". FZ "On Enforcement Proceedings" tells us about the terms of presenting the writ of execution for execution.

As a general rule (Article 21 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings"), the deadline for submission of the writ of execution for execution is three years. Those. In the course of three years the creditor has the right to apply to court bailiffs to the executors with a statement on the execution of the penalty on the executive document.

The consequences of non-compliance with the term are specified in cl. 31 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings", where it is said that in the event of missing the deadline for the submission of an enforcement document to recovery, the bailiff refuses to initiate enforcement proceedings.

However, in accordance with Art. 22 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" it follows that in the event that the writ of execution is submitted for execution, the period specified in Art. 21 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" is interrupted. And in the event that the writ of execution was sent to the recoverer for the impossibility of recovery, then the period begins to flow again from the moment of sending the writ to the recoverer.

These provisions of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" contradict each other and, in general, sound logic on the following grounds.

The flow of the term in the event of a break, as a general rule, is interrupted. However, within the meaning of the words "break" it is implied that after the grounds for the suspension of the deadline have disappeared , the term should continue, but not to flow again.

In this part - Article 21 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" and Art. 22 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" contradict each other.

If following art. 22 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" it turns out that the creditor can always present a writ of execution for execution throughout life. Only to prevent the deadline - 3 years from the date of the last return of the writ of execution.

I believe that this provision violates both the rights of the creditor and the debtor's rights.

Violation of the creditor's rights in this part is that the law provides for so-called judicial red tape. The creditor who submits for execution the sheet hopes for the fact that the court decision will be executed in the near future.

In fact, foreclosing drags on for 20 years. In addition, the amount of debt in 20 years may be due to inflation is very small, which also hits the interests of the lender.

Violation of the rights of the debtor is seen in the following. For several years, the executive sheets lie at the bailiffs, who then say - pay. It turns out that the bailiffs are silent, and the debtor simply does not know about the presence of debt (cases of judicial orders). Then after 4 years the bailiff comes and describes everything.

And where all these 4 years was the bailiff? After all for these 4 years it was possible to pay the whole amount of debt or any part of it.

I agree that the debtor is obliged to execute the judgment, but this is only applicable if the debtor is aware of the enforcement proceedings. And if the debtor does not know? If a court order or a judgment in absentia was issued, on which the debtor was not notified ....

In the current situation, it is supposed to be a better option - to adopt amendments to the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings", where it is clearly stated that after the break the limitation period continues to flow, and does not start flowing again.

In addition, oblige the bailiff service to prove the fact of sending a decision to initiate an enforcement proceeding and the fact that the debtor receives the specified resolution.

Thus, it will be a kind of protection of the rights of debtors who did not know about the court's decision. After all, if they did not know, so they did not. And do not do it to blame debtors.

In the event that the debtor knew of the existence of an enforcement proceeding, then it is necessary to discipline the debtor. How to do it? First of all, do not rely on the debtor.

If the debtor did not pay the debt pending trial, it is unlikely that he will pay it on his own initiative after the trial. Therefore, if an executive proceeding has been initiated, then it is necessary to conduct concrete actions specifically to the bailiff service. No wonder they carry out a compulsory punishment.

This norm also disciplines the creditor, who will know that he can present the writ of execution not all the time, but only after the expiry of the limitation period.

And when presenting the writ of execution, the creditor will conduct measures to repay the debt.

As a result, it turns out, since the bailiff executor is connected with the terms of the enforcement proceedings - he will try to solve the problem and collect the debt exactly in these terms.

The lender will also feel responsible and will not stretch and thereby facilitate a quick resolution of the issue of recovering the amount of debt from the debtor.

And the debtor is also an outlet. You understand, he will know that enforcement proceedings are being conducted against him, and bona fide debtors will begin to repay their debts themselves in order to ensure that no arrests of property are made.

Well, and to unscrupulous debtors should be applied very different measures.

In a word, this problem must be solved at the federal level, as the current situation does not provide a guarantee of protection of neither the creditor's rights nor the rights of debtors.

And the bailiff service will be more obligatory for the performance of their duties