Incitement to perform the court’s decision
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Article discusses legal regulation related with the presentment of incitement to perform the court’s decision to the debtor in performance process.
Author analyses the legal importance of incitement to perform decision.
In court practice the delivery of incitement to perform decision to the debtor is deemed to be the primary implementation of bailiff’s actions. With the incitement to perform decision the debtor is informed, that recoverer began the performance process and if the debtor during fixed period of time won’t perform the court’s decision so the forced performance process will be started.
Implementing decision in force because of money enforcement the debtor firstly suffers materially. He has to pay the expenditure of performance. Selling the property in auction, the selling price of property is mostly lower then the price in market. Forced performance of court decision to the debtor causes also negative legal and in some cases moral consequences. If the debtor doesn’t implement monetary nature court’s decision he can be inscribed into debtor’s register and to get a credit becomes very hard. When the forced performance process is started and the lodging of debtor is seized, in which the debtor and his family lives, the bailiff and potential buyers from auction can visit and look over this lodging.
Forced performance of court decision negative consequences is very important inducement to the debtor to perform the decision in good will. By the incitement to perform the court’s decision the debtor is warned about the threaten start of forced performance process and consequences. That is why incitement to perform the court’s decision has enormous preventive importance, which influence the debtor to perform the court’s decision.
When the debtor delivers the incitement he can plead for his rights till the forced performance beginning, for example, initiate the bankruptcy, inform bailiff about obstacles to accept executive document to perform and start implementation actions and etc.
Incitement to perform the decision may give rise the processional consequences not only to debtor, but also to other process participants: bailiff and recoverer. Bailiff requests the information about the debtor property and in some cases can seize the debtor’s property.
Accordingly after the dispatch or delivery of incitement to perform the decision, the debtor may cause negative consequences related with his properties search and seize. When the debtor’s property is known to which can be directed seizure, recoverer can realize his right, fixed in the 1 part of 662 article of CPK and following the rank fixed in 664 and 665 articles of CPK till the forced performance beginning can with a written notice specify the property or receipts of debtor’s from which the recovery should be started firstly.
That is why the incitement’s to perform the decision processional importance is legally very significant to all participants in the performance process.
The decision performance through the term fixed in the incitement causes material legal consequences. When the debtor performs decision after that term all performance expenditures are recovered from him.
Article analyses the incitement’s to perform the decision delivery means. According to the importance and legal significance of incitement to perform the decision CPK fixes means of incitement’s to perform the decision delivery to the debtor:
- personally to the debtor;
- by sending a registered letter;
- by public announcement.
Discussing CPK fixed means when incitement to the debtor is sent and demand for the debtor to declare it’s property before the end of term fixed in incitement to implement decision, author makes conclusion, that such regulation violates debtor’s rights.
According to the Punishment performance code bailiff implements legal person’s activities limitations and liquidation of legal person punishments. By the opinion of the author, legal regulation of incitements dispatch implementing criminal penalties in Punishment performance code is regulated insufficiently.
Author analyses the legal importance of incitement to perform decision.
In court practice the delivery of incitement to perform decision to the debtor is deemed to be the primary implementation of bailiff’s actions. With the incitement to perform decision the debtor is informed, that recoverer began the performance process and if the debtor during fixed period of time won’t perform the court’s decision so the forced performance process will be started.
Implementing decision in force because of money enforcement the debtor firstly suffers materially. He has to pay the expenditure of performance. Selling the property in auction, the selling price of property is mostly lower then the price in market. Forced performance of court decision to the debtor causes also negative legal and in some cases moral consequences. If the debtor doesn’t implement monetary nature court’s decision he can be inscribed into debtor’s register and to get a credit becomes very hard. When the forced performance process is started and the lodging of debtor is seized, in which the debtor and his family lives, the bailiff and potential buyers from auction can visit and look over this lodging.
Forced performance of court decision negative consequences is very important inducement to the debtor to perform the decision in good will. By the incitement to perform the court’s decision the debtor is warned about the threaten start of forced performance process and consequences. That is why incitement to perform the court’s decision has enormous preventive importance, which influence the debtor to perform the court’s decision.
When the debtor delivers the incitement he can plead for his rights till the forced performance beginning, for example, initiate the bankruptcy, inform bailiff about obstacles to accept executive document to perform and start implementation actions and etc.
Incitement to perform the decision may give rise the processional consequences not only to debtor, but also to other process participants: bailiff and recoverer. Bailiff requests the information about the debtor property and in some cases can seize the debtor’s property.
Accordingly after the dispatch or delivery of incitement to perform the decision, the debtor may cause negative consequences related with his properties search and seize. When the debtor’s property is known to which can be directed seizure, recoverer can realize his right, fixed in the 1 part of 662 article of CPK and following the rank fixed in 664 and 665 articles of CPK till the forced performance beginning can with a written notice specify the property or receipts of debtor’s from which the recovery should be started firstly.
That is why the incitement’s to perform the decision processional importance is legally very significant to all participants in the performance process.
The decision performance through the term fixed in the incitement causes material legal consequences. When the debtor performs decision after that term all performance expenditures are recovered from him.
Article analyses the incitement’s to perform the decision delivery means. According to the importance and legal significance of incitement to perform the decision CPK fixes means of incitement’s to perform the decision delivery to the debtor:
- personally to the debtor;
- by sending a registered letter;
- by public announcement.
Discussing CPK fixed means when incitement to the debtor is sent and demand for the debtor to declare it’s property before the end of term fixed in incitement to implement decision, author makes conclusion, that such regulation violates debtor’s rights.
According to the Punishment performance code bailiff implements legal person’s activities limitations and liquidation of legal person punishments. By the opinion of the author, legal regulation of incitements dispatch implementing criminal penalties in Punishment performance code is regulated insufficiently.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
