On postponement or installment of execution of court decisions

          In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and article 21 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), judicial acts that have entered into force are binding on all state bodies and their officials, individuals or legal entities to whom these judicial acts relate.

The execution of judicial acts is the final stage of civil proceedings and determines the effectiveness of justice in the State. The purpose of enforcement proceedings is to ensure the effective restoration of violated or disputed rights or legally protected interests.

According to Article 238 of the CPC, the court that reviewed the case and issued a decision has the right, at the request of the persons participating in the case, based on the property status of the parties or other valid reasons, to delay or delay the execution of the decision, as well as to change the method and procedure for its execution.

The court shall consider and resolve the application, petition for postponement, installment plan or change of the method and procedure of execution of the court decision within ten working days from the date of receipt of the application to the court. The applications referred to in the first part of this article shall be considered at a court hearing. The persons participating in the case are notified of the time and place of the meeting.

The failure of these persons to appear is not an obstacle to resolving the issue brought before the court. The court's ruling on the issue of postponement or installment of execution of the decision, on changing the method and procedure for its execution may be appealed or protested.

The debtor's property status as the basis for granting him a deferral or installment plan means that the debtor cannot voluntarily or forcibly fulfill the obligation in full at one time by selling his property provided for in articles 20 and 44 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The property status of the claimant has no legal significance when considering the issue of granting a deferral or an installment plan for the execution of a judicial act. Deferral or installment payment of enforcement actions, taking into account the debtor's property status, may be granted only if the court is provided with evidence confirming that by the time the deferral or installment periods expire, the debtor will have sufficient property to execute the judicial act.

If the debtor does not have property that can be foreclosed on, a delay or installment plan for the execution of enforcement actions in accordance with Article 246 of the CPC is not provided, and the enforcement document is returned to the recoverer on the basis of subparagraph 2) of paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs" (hereinafter referred to as the Law).

Other valid reasons, which, in accordance with Article 238 of the CPC, may be the basis for granting a delay or an installment plan for the execution of a judicial act, should be understood as the inability of the recoverer to accept voluntary execution from the debtor for valid reasons, or the debtor's inability for valid reasons to perform actions voluntarily prescribed by the judicial act.

Feature: according to the grounds provided for in Article 238 of the CPC, regardless of the period of their occurrence (before or after the issuance of a judicial act), the execution of a judicial act may be delayed or delayed in installments if the judicial act is not enforced in accordance with the procedure provided for in Articles 143 or 241 of the CPC.

The question of whether a judicial act has entered into force or not, and whether the subject of execution is a divisible or indivisible thing, has no legal significance.

In accordance with Article 246 of the CPC, the court that issued the decision or court order in the case, as well as the court at the place of execution of the decision, may, at the request of the state bailiff in enforcement proceedings for which the state is the recoverer, and (or) at the request of the parties in the enforcement proceedings, change the method or procedure for its execution, at the request of the parties in to postpone or delay the execution of a court decision in enforcement proceedings if circumstances arise that make it difficult or impossible to perform enforcement actions.

According to the grounds provided for in Article 246 of the CPC, deferral or installment payment may be granted by the court only if: the bailiff has initiated enforcement proceedings; the grounds provided for in this provision of the law are available at the time the bailiff performs executive actions; there is evidence that makes the execution of executive actions difficult or impossible.

According to paragraph 20 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 31, 2017 No. 1 "On the application by courts of certain norms of legislation on enforcement proceedings" on the grounds provided for in Article 246 of the CPC, deferral or installment of execution of a judicial act may be granted by the court only if: enforcement proceedings have been initiated by the bailiff; there are grounds provided for by this provision of the law by the time the bailiff commits the enforcement actions; there is evidence that makes performing executive actions difficult or impossible.

The circumstances provided for in Article 246 of the CPC that make it impossible or difficult to perform enforcement actions should be understood as valid reasons why the bailiff cannot perform those enforcement actions that must be performed with the personal participation of the debtor or the recoverer.

Such circumstances may include, for example, the presence of the recoverer or debtor in hospital treatment or on a business trip lasting more than ten days, undergoing military service in the Armed Forces, other troops and military formations of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

A postponement or installment of a settlement agreement between the parties or an agreement on the settlement of a dispute (conflict) may be made in accordance with the mediation procedure approved by the court. Postponement of the execution of a judicial act means a procedural court decision to postpone to a later date the date on which the judicial act was applied for enforcement or the date on which the bailiff began performing enforcement actions in the initiated enforcement proceedings.

The duration of the deferral is determined by the court using criteria such as reasonableness and fairness provided for in Article 6 of the CPC, so that the deferral does not violate the claimant's legitimate rights and the debtor does not evade the execution of a judicial act.

The postponement of the application of a judicial act for enforcement may not exceed the time limits provided for in article 11 of the Law.

If the debtor does not have property that can be foreclosed on, a delay in the execution of enforcement actions in accordance with Article 246 of the CPC is not provided.

A delay in the execution of a judicial act that has recovered property damage from a minor between the ages of fourteen and eighteen may be granted until the defendant reaches the age of majority if the minor does not have property or income during this period.

If the circumstances that served as the basis for the postponement have disappeared earlier than the date of the postponement period established by the court, then at the request of the recoverer, the debtor or at the request of the bailiff, the court at the court session cancels the decision on granting the postponement.

Article 243 of the CPC defines exceptions to the general rule when decisions are enforced immediately after the decision is rendered.

The list of such decisions is exhaustive and the application of deferral is not acceptable. Article 244 of the CPC provides for the right of the court to apply the decision for immediate execution, the application of a delay is also unacceptable.

In cases provided for in Chapters 29 and 30 of the CPC, a court decision may not be postponed or delayed by execution, and the method and procedure of execution established by the court decision may not be changed.

When satisfying an application, the court must specify in the ruling the duration of the deferral, while the limits of the deferral can be determined not only by the date, but also by the occurrence of an event (for example, a change in the defendant's financial situation, recovery, etc.).

A procedural decision on postponement or installment of the execution of a judicial act or the performance of executive actions is valid for a period specified by the court.

An installment plan for the execution of a judicial act means a procedural court decision on the execution of a judicial act in parts within the time limit set by the court by the debtor voluntarily, or forcibly by the bailiff in enforcement proceedings, if the subject of execution is a divisible thing (for example, money, work performed, etc.).

In each specific case, the court must determine whether there is a real need to grant a delay, an installment plan, or a change in the method and procedure for executing a judicial act. In this case, the court must take into account the interests of both the debtor and the recoverer, their property status and other circumstances of the case that deserve attention, which must be indicated in the reasoning part of the ruling.

Installment payment of obligations in the form of periodic payments (alimony, compensation for injury to health, lost earnings due to the death of the breadwinner) is not allowed, since the impossibility of fulfilling such obligations is considered in a different manner established by legislative acts (calculation of alimony arrears, reduction of the amount of reimbursable damage, bankruptcy, and others).

In the determination on the provision of an installment plan for the execution of a judicial act, the court must specify specific periods during which the debtor is obliged to transfer a specific amount of money to the recoverer or perform certain work (provide a service). Other persons on their own behalf and without authority, except for the debtor, the recoverer, and the bailiff, are not entitled to file an application with the court for granting a deferral, installment plan, or changing the method or procedure for executing a judicial act or performing executive actions.

By analogy with subparagraph 5) of part 1 of Article 154 of the CPC, such applications are subject to return to the persons who submitted them. The court's ruling on the provision of installments should specify during which calendar period and in what specific parts the debtor must fulfill the obligation.

The application, as well as the petition of the bailiff for postponement, installment of the execution of the judicial act, by analogy with Articles 148 and 149 of the CPC, must contain:

- the name of the court that issued the judicial act;

- information (surname, first name, patronymic, address, name of the legal entity and its location) about the applicant and other interested persons;

- the content of the obligation that, in accordance with the judicial act, the debtor must fulfill;

- specific circumstances that indicate the impossibility or difficulty of executing a judicial act;

- the applicant's request for a deferral period, the terms of the installment plan, as well as the method and procedure of execution proposed to replace the method and procedure for executing the judicial act specified in the judicial act.

The application must be accompanied by appropriate evidence confirming the existence of circumstances that are the basis for filing an application (petition).

If the application for a deferral or an installment plan for the execution of a judicial act prior to its consideration on its merits is withdrawn by the person who submitted it, the court, by analogy with subparagraph 8) of Article 279 of the CPC, issues a ruling on leaving the application (petition) without consideration.

An application (petition of a bailiff) for postponement or installment of the execution of a judicial act in accordance with subparagraph 14) of Article 541 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments to the Budget" (Tax Code) is not paid by state duty.

Filing an application (petition) for granting a second deferral or an installment plan on another basis obliges the court to carefully examine the arguments presented by the parties and decide whether filing such an application (petition) is a way of evading the debtor from the proper execution of a judicial act.

The penalty provided for in Article 353 of the Civil Code is not levied for the period of granting a deferral or an installment plan for the execution of a judicial act by which money was recovered from the debtor in favor of the recoverer.

On issues of postponement and installment of execution of court decisions, judicial practice is stable, and the reasons for cancellations and amendments to judicial acts are errors related to the inconsistency of the court's conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case.

For example, the Shortandinsky District Court of the Akmola region, in refusing to postpone the execution of the court's decision of June 20, 2016 on the claim of JSC EB against M. for debt collection, legitimately assumed that the applicant had not provided evidence confirming that by the time the deferral or installment periods ended, the debtor would have property sufficient to execution of a judicial act.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that when considering materials on the postponement of the execution of judicial acts by the courts of the republic, there is a different approach to the application of the requirements of Articles 238, 246 of the CPC, as well as the regulatory decree of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On certain issues of the execution of judicial acts in civil cases", in force at the time of consideration of the case materials.

For example, by the ruling of the Taldykorgan City Court of the Almaty region dated May 20, 2016, the execution of the judicial act on the application of P. K. LLP "MKO "A-K" for the recovery of the amount was postponed for a period of one year. It can be seen from the content of the above-mentioned court ruling that the court of first instance motivated the procedural actions with reference to the debtor's property status.

At the same time, the court did not take into account that paragraph 8 of the regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 6 dated June 29, 2009 "On certain issues of the execution of judicial acts in civil cases" in force at the time of consideration of the material, postponement or installment of enforcement actions, taking into account the debtor's property status, may be provided only if the court Evidence will be provided confirming that by the time the deferral or installment periods expire, the debtor will have sufficient property to execute the judicial act.

If the debtor does not have any property that can be foreclosed on, no delay or installment plan for the execution of enforcement actions is provided. A similar violation was committed by the Balkhash city Court of the Karaganda region.

So, for example, by the ruling of the said court dated September 6, 2016, a delay was granted in the execution of the decision of the specialized interdistrict economic court of the Karaganda region dated September 13, 2012 in a civil case on the claim of the State Emergency Service of the city of Balkhash of the Emergency Department of the Karaganda region of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the KGP "B-S" on the suspension of the operation of the premises. In satisfying the debtor's request for a stay of execution of the court's decision, the court referred to the debtor's difficult financial situation.

At the same time, the court did not take into account that the decision entered into force on September 28, 2012, and has been under enforcement for more than 4 years. In addition, the court of first instance violated jurisdiction in this case, because the debtor's application for a deferral should have been considered by the specialized interdistrict economic court of the Karaganda region. An analysis of judicial practice has shown that the practice of considering applications for postponement and installment of execution of a court decision on eviction has developed ambiguously.

When considering applications for these categories of cases, courts need to clearly distinguish between the concepts of deferral and installment execution of judgments. Thus, the postponement of the execution of a judicial act is understood as a procedural court decision to postpone to a later date the date of the appeal of the judicial act for enforcement or the date of the beginning of the execution of enforcement actions by the bailiff on the initiated enforcement proceedings.

The duration of the delay is determined by the court using the criteria of reasonableness and fairness, so that the legal rights of the recoverer are not violated, and the debtor does not evade the execution of the judicial act.

An installment plan for the execution of a judicial act is understood as a procedural court decision on the execution of a judicial act in parts within a period set by the court voluntarily by the debtor or the bailiff in enforcement proceedings, if the subject of execution is a divisible thing (for example, money, work performed, and others).

Despite the explanations given by the Supreme Court in the regulatory decision on the difference between legal actions for postponing and installment execution of a court decision, some courts do not distinguish.

For example, by the ruling of the Burlinsky District Court of the West Kazakhstan region dated November 02, 2016, K.'s application was satisfied. on the installment plan for the execution of a court decision. In the operative part of the judicial act, the court determined to postpone the execution of the court's decision of September 22, 2015, until April 15, 2017.

When taking this procedural action, the court did not take into account that the court's decision has not been enforced since September 2015. In the court's opinion, the basis for satisfying the application is the presence of three minor children dependent on the defendant, the absence of other housing, and the bailiff's notification of the voluntary release of the apartment building was received only on October 12, 2016.

An example of when the court of first instance came to an incorrect conclusion, which served as the basis for correcting a judicial act by a higher court, is the following civil case.

The debtor of LLP "T" appealed to the court for a delay in the execution of the court decision, indicating that the amount of KZT 6,221,600 was recovered from him in favor of KH "V" by the decision of the Council of Economic and Social Council of Kostanay region dated February 12, 2015.

The recoverer also filed an application for foreclosure on agricultural machinery and cars of the debtor of LLP "T". The Court of First instance combined the two applications and considered them in one proceeding. In court, a private bailiff asked to satisfy the application of KH "V", since the debtor does not execute the court decision.

The court of first instance refused to satisfy the application of LLP "T", the application of KH "B" was partially satisfied, and the method and procedure for executing the court decision were changed, foreclosure was levied on four vehicles of LLP "T" in the amount of 4,505,000 tenge.

At the same time, the court took into account that the debtor of T LLP was unable to provide evidence confirming the fact that by the time the deferral or installment period ends, the debtor will have property sufficient to execute the judicial act, as well as the fact that his property is pledged to a third party.

Article 57 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings provides that if the debtor's non-pledged property is insufficient to satisfy the claims of recoverers who do not have the right to pledge the debtor's property, foreclosure on the pledged property, with the exception of property that is collateral for secured bonds and real estate that is collateral for the obligation of a mortgage housing loan, may may be applied in the interests of non-mortgagees of recoverers whose claims take precedence over the claim of the mortgagee, based on a court ruling.

The Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Kostanay Regional Court considering that the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the modification of the method and procedure for the execution of a court decision by applying to a specific debtor's property, namely, applying to four debtor's cars, contradict the requirements of Article 246 of the CPC and Article 55 of the Law, by a decision of April 4, 2016, in this part, the court of first instance She canceled the instances, and left the rest of the definition unchanged.

When studying judicial acts, facts have been established when the courts, when satisfying the claims of debtors, incorrectly establish the range of circumstances relevant to the case.

Debtors L. and B. applied to the court for a delay in the execution of the court decision, arguing that by the decision of the Kokshetau City Court of the Akmola region dated April 1, 2015, D.'s claim against them for the recovery of KZT 14,600,000 each in arrears under money loan agreements dated April 4, 2013 was fully satisfied.

The said court decision has now entered into legal force and enforcement actions are being carried out by the private bailiff B. At the moment, they don't have enough money to pay off the debt.

The bailiff takes measures to foreclose on the property, which makes it difficult to determine the shares in the common property, aggravates the situation in relations with spouses and other family members. By a ruling of the Kostanay City Court dated January 22, 2016, the debtors' applications were partially satisfied, and the execution of the Kostanay City Court's decision dated January 22, 2016 was postponed for a period of two months.

By the ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Kostanay Regional Court dated March 5, 2016, the said court ruling was canceled, due to the following.

The court of appeal found that the debtors are the founders and managers of LLP "S" and had the full opportunity to execute the court's decision, but since 2015 they have not executed the court's decision. In addition, the court of first instance did not take into account the fact that the court decision was not executed for more than six months, and the debtor had the opportunity to execute the court decision by selling real estate.

Judicial acts were also annulled by a higher authority due to violations of the norms of civil procedure legislation.

By the definition of the Council of Economic and Social Council of Kostanay region dated March 5, 2016, the application of the debtor of KH "D" was satisfied, the decision to recover from KH "D" in favor of the Kostanay branch of JSC "FFPSH" the amount of KZT 6,351,529 was postponed for a period of 9 months. By the decision of the judicial board for civil cases of the Kostanay Regional Court of June 16, 2016, the court ruling was canceled, with the referral of the application of KH "D" for a new review.

The following circumstances served as the basis for the cancellation of the ruling on appeal. According to the case file, by a court order of the Council of Economic and Social Council of Kostanay region dated March 11, 2014, an amount of KZT 6,351,529 was recovered from farm "D" in favor of the Kostanay branch of FFPSH JSC.

By the ruling of the same court dated May 14, 2015, a settlement agreement was approved between the parties, under the terms of which the recoverer abandoned the claim for foreclosure on the property, the debtor undertook to pay the amount of KZT 6,351,529 by November 1, 2015.

In the court of appeal, the representative of the recoverer explained that when considering the debtor's application, the court of first instance did not notify the recoverer, as well as the bailiff, of the time and place of the court session, in addition, the court did not examine the materials of the enforcement proceedings, did not find out the reasons for the non-execution of the court order for 2 years.

The higher instance took these arguments into account and provided the grounds for sending the case for a new hearing in a different composition.

They lawfully refuse to satisfy the applications of debtors for an installment plan for the execution of decisions.

Thus, by the ruling of the specialized interdistrict economic court of the Akmola region dated March 4, 2016, a settlement agreement was approved between plaintiff N. and defendant E-A LLP, under the terms of which the defendant undertook to transfer land plots for crops, grazing, with a total area of 127.7 hectares to the plaintiff by October 20, 2016, and the plaintiff undertook to accept the property and pay the costs of completing the transaction.

Subsequently, E-A LLP applied to the court for an installment plan for the execution of the court's decision until March 30, 2017. In support of the application submitted by the partnership, arguments were given that the specified land plots are pledged.

However, the court of first instance found that the partnership, as part of the execution of the court's decision, has the opportunity to provide equivalent land plots.

In this regard, the court concluded that during the consideration of this application, the circumstances that make the execution of executive actions difficult or impossible had not been established.

By the ruling of the specialized interdistrict Economic Court of the Akmola region dated December 2, 2016, the application for an installment plan of the judicial act was refused. By the ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Akmola region dated February 7, 2017, the ruling of the court of first instance remained unchanged.

It has been established that there are facts when the grounds for correcting judicial acts of the first instance were the inconsistency of the conclusions of the court of first instance set out in the ruling with the circumstances of the case.

That is, the courts, when satisfying the applications of debtors, allow incorrect definition and clarification of the range of circumstances relevant to the case. Thus, the ruling of the Zhetykarinsky district Court of the Kostanay region satisfied the application of Sh., Sh. and Sh. for an installment plan for the execution of the decision of this court dated September 5, 2016.

The court ordered the execution of the judgment in installments of 20,000 tenge per month for 1 year until September 5, 2017. In support of satisfying the application of the debtors, the court indicated the retirement age of one, the illness of the second and the absence of work from the third debtor. By the ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Kostanay Regional Court dated November 29, 2016, the ruling of the court of first instance was changed, the installment period was reduced to 4 months. The rest of the definition is left unchanged.

At the same time, the court of appeal agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance on the compliance of the application with the requirements of Article 246 of the CPC, but considered the installment period provided by the court to be too long and reduced it to 4 months.

Deferrals and installments are unreasonably canceled by a higher authority.

Thus, by the ruling of the appellate judicial board of the Kostanay region dated October 3, 2016, the ruling of the specialized interdistrict economic court of the Kostanay region dated June 9, 2016 on the refusal to satisfy the application of TPK K LLP for postponement of execution of the decision was canceled and the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Rostov Region dated June 26, 2015 was postponed until December 25, 2016. of the year.

The case materials established that by the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Rostov region dated June 26, 2015, a debt in the amount of 1,717,967.10 US dollars, a penalty in the amount of 666,513.70 US dollars, and a fine in the amount of 127,758.40 US dollars, 200,000 rubles state duty expenses.

The decision of a foreign court has entered into legal force and is subject to enforcement in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The court found that the debtor has property in the form of grain in the amount of 10,000 tons in the amount of 508 581 000 tenge.

In addition, it can be seen from the evidence provided that the debtor purchased grain, spare parts, fuel and lubricants for a total amount of 260,884,700 tenge. In refusing to satisfy the stated claims, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the debtor has the means to execute the court's decision, and the debtor's actions formally show signs of non-fulfillment of the court's decision.

Disagreeing with the conclusion of the court of first instance, the judicial board took into account that the debtor of TPK K LLP is an agricultural enterprise, performs sowing/harvesting operations, as a result of which it is expected to receive the 2016 harvest and its sale, and the seizure of settlement accounts and property, other executive actions of the bailiff, impede the activity of the debtor.

To date, the debtor has purchased fuel and lubricants, pesticides for the treatment of acreage, spare parts for agricultural machinery, and seed material, which is confirmed by the deferred payment purchase and sale agreements submitted by the applicant.

At the same time, the judicial board did not take into account that the debtor has not executed the judicial act of a foreign state since October 2015. It should be noted that in similar situations, the judicial board of Kostanay region canceled another judicial act. Thus, by the definition of the Council of Economic and Social Council of Kostanay region dated August 4, 2016, the application of P-250 LLP for an installment plan for the execution of the court decision was satisfied.

It can be seen from the contents of the court ruling that P-250 LLP was provided with an installment plan for the execution of the IESEC decision dated April 27, 2016 and the following repayment dates were determined: - 5,000,000 tenge by September 15, 2016; - 5,000,000 tenge by October 15, 2016: - 5,000,000 tenge by November 15 2016; - 46,574,383 tenge until December 15, 2016.

By providing an installment plan for the execution of the judicial act, the court of first instance indicated that LLP "P-250" is an agricultural enterprise whose activities are related to the cultivation of grain crops and today LLP "P-250" has sown 3,800 hectares of soft spring wheat, 800 hectares of spring barley, 600 hectares of oats.

From the certificate of the State Institution "Department of Agriculture of the Akimat of Uzynkol district" it can be seen that 38 units of equipment were registered for P-250 LLP. The higher instance, canceling the court's ruling on granting installments to P-250 LLP, motivated the conclusion with reference to the fact that the debtor had not provided reliable evidence confirming that by the time the deferral or installment periods ended, it would have property sufficient to execute the judicial act.

When deciding whether to grant a deferral and an installment plan for the execution of a decision, the courts need to pay attention to the circumstances of the case, satisfy and refuse to satisfy the application only if there are legitimate grounds for it.

The Law does not establish criteria on the issue of postponement or installment of execution of a court decision. In each specific case, the court must determine whether there is really a need to submit a deferral or installment plan.

When considering applications, the court must take into account the interests of the debtor, the recoverer, their property status, and other circumstances of the case that deserve attention, which should be reflected in the reasoning part of the court ruling.

When considering applications of this category, courts should keep in mind that the granting of a deferral or an installment plan for the execution of a judicial act is an exceptional measure and can be applied if there are valid reasons that make it difficult or impossible to perform executive actions.

When resolving the issue of granting a deferral or an installment plan for the execution of a decision, the courts mainly take into account the debtor's family and financial situation, the presence of circumstances indicating the absence of an opportunity to execute a court decision at the time of the execution, as well as the possibility of paying off debts at the expense of his property provided for in articles 20 and 44 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Unjustified granting of a deferral or an installment plan makes it impossible for the claimant to exercise his rights, reduces the authority of the judicial act.

The granting of a deferral or an installment plan may take place only in cases of the debtor's difficult financial situation under the prevailing unfavorable circumstances or in the presence of other circumstances worthy of attention.

The results of the generalization showed that the practice of courts considering applications for postponement and installment of execution of judicial acts is generally correct.

However, there continue to be cases where a delay or an installment plan for the execution of a court decision is provided due to insufficiently investigated circumstances, without proper necessity.

Judicial errors are made due to insufficient examination of evidence, incorrect determination and establishment of circumstances relevant to the case, and improper application of the procedural law.

During the deferral or installment period, the debtor must be able to repay the debt at the expense of his property.

If the debtor does not have sufficient property to execute the judicial act by the end of the deferral or installment plan, then the deferral or installment plan is not provided.

The duration of the deferral or installment plan should not exceed the time limits for the execution of enforcement documents established by article 39 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Bailiffs."

Taking into account the importance and relevance of timely execution of judicial acts, taking into account the interests of the rights of the parties to enforcement proceedings, in order to eliminate and ensure a uniform direction of judicial practice, it is necessary:

- correctly identify the range of circumstances relevant to the case, thoroughly investigate and give a proper assessment of the established circumstances of the case;

- resolve issues of postponement and installment of execution of judicial acts in accordance with the requirements of the law and the principles set out in article 39 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings.

Regulatory legal framework.

- The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated August 30, 1995;

- The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated October 31, 2015 No. 377-V SAM.;

- Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 13, 1999 No. 411 (Expired);

- The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Enforcement proceedings and the status of bailiffs" dated April 2, 2010 No. 261-IV;

- Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On certain issues of the execution of judicial acts in civil cases" dated June 29, 2009 No. 6 (effective during the generalization period, subsequently expired on March 31, 2017);

- Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the application by courts of certain norms of legislation on enforcement proceedings" dated March 31, 2017 No. 1.

 

 

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