On the necessity of observing the procedure for preliminary out-of-court settlement of a case
For example, a preliminary out-of-court procedure for resolving a case is provided for when appealing the decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff.
In accordance with part 3 of Article 360-3 of the CPC, a complaint against the decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff, or another employee of the enforcement authority, except for a complaint
against the decisions, actions (inaction) of the Chief Bailiff of the Republic of Belarus, may be filed with the court
after an out-of-court appeal procedure established by the legislation on enforcement proceedings, within ten days from the date of receipt of the decision of the head of the enforcement authority.
According to part 1 of Article 131 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus
"On Enforcement Proceedings" (hereinafter referred to as the Law), based on the results of the consideration of a complaint against the decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff, or another employee of the enforcement authority, the corresponding head of the enforcement authority has the right to: recognize the decisions, actions (inaction) as lawful and reject the complaint; recognize the complaint as justified in whole or in part.
Appealing the actions of a bailiff in court is possible after the complaint has been considered and
one of the decisions provided for in part 1 of Article 131 of the Law has been made by the head of the relevant enforcement authority.
By a court decision, the complaint of V. was satisfied, the time limit
for appealing the actions of the bailiff was restored to her, and the act of seizure of property drawn up by the bailiff was declared unlawful and annulled.
From the materials of the civil case, it followed that within the framework of enforcement proceedings, the bailiff imposed an arrest on the apartment belonging to the debtor V.
Subsequently, V. appealed the bailiff's actions regarding the seizure of property to the head of the enforcement authority, by whose decision the appeal was returned without consideration. After that, the debtor filed an application to restore the missed appeal period, which was denied. V. was denied the acceptance of a repeated appeal, i.e. her appeal was not considered and none of the decisions provided for by Part 1 of Article 131 of the Law were made regarding it.
The debtor did not comply with the mandatory pre-trial appeal procedure before filing a complaint with the court
against the bailiff's actions, in connection with which the prosecutor's office of the city of Vitebsk filed an appeal against the court's decision, which was satisfied by the ruling of the judicial board for civil cases of the Vitebsk Regional Court, the court's decision was overturned,
and V.'s complaint was left without consideration.