Foreclosure on property by the State Bailiff

No. 6001-23-00-6ap/630 dated 07/19/2023

             Plaintiff: M.A.

Defendant: GSI Ye.

Interested person: J.K.

The subject of the dispute: the recognition of actions (inaction) and decisions of the territorial department for the execution of judicial acts for 10 years as illegal, violating rights and legitimate interests, and the obligation to comply with established and prescribed earlier judicial acts.

Review of the plaintiff's cassation appeal.

PLOT: M.A. the mortgagee of the joint property of J.K. and J.A.

On January 5, 2021, a decree on foreclosure on the property of the State Tax Service levied foreclosure on a half share of the property.

On January 11, 2021, by the decision of the GSI, E., the property was transferred to M.A. On the same day, the enforcement proceedings were terminated due to the fulfillment of the requirements of the enforcement document.

In this connection, M.A. sent a statement to the defendant, to which there was no response.

The claim is motivated by the fact that foreclosure on the debtor's property includes the seizure of property and its compulsory transfer to the recoverer, within the mandatory period provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 39 of the Law and may not exceed execution for more than 6 months, which, according to the law, entails losses for the recoverer, the mortgagee M.A. Judicial acts: 1st instance: the ruling returned the claim to based on subparagraph 11) of the second part of Article 138 of the CPC (the case is not subject to consideration in administrative proceedings).

Appeal: the definition remains unchanged.

Cassation: judicial acts are cancelled.

Conclusions: The Court of First Instance set out the operative part of the ruling of July 21, 2022 in the form of a decision to dismiss the claim. On September 26, 2022, the court issued a ruling on making a correction, the court changed the basis for the refund, which is unacceptable. The courts did not take into account the fact that the act (inaction) GSI E. the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of M. A. were affected.

The courts have not determined the type of administrative claim, the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant have not been fully verified, the procedure and completeness of the administrative procedures of the ICG have not been clarified, the claims have not been clarified.

 

 

 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases