The regional prosecutor's office studied judicial practice and prosecutorial supervision practice in civil cases concerning complaints about the actions (inaction) of bailiffs

Features of the consideration of complaints (protests) against the decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff, the head of the enforcement authority are regulated by paragraph 9 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus, as well as by chapter 12 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Enforcement Proceedings".

Complaints (protests) against the decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff, as well as against the decisions, actions (inaction) of the head of the enforcement authority related to the direct execution of enforcement documents, are filed with the court at the location of the respective enforcement authority.

The study of cases showed that courts observe the rules of jurisdiction when considering cases of the generalized category.

Part 2 of Art. 360-3 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as Part 1 of Art. 124 of the Law, provide for a preliminary out-of-court procedure for appealing the actions (inaction), decisions of a bailiff in subordination.

It should be noted that Part 2 of Art. 124 of the Law provides for the prosecutor's right to file a protest directly with the court without observing the procedure for appealing (protesting) the decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff, the decisions, actions (inaction) of the head of the enforcement authority.

According to Art. 360-3 of the Civil Procedure Code, decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff, as well as decisions, actions (inaction) of the head of the enforcement authority related to the direct execution of enforcement documents, can be appealed (protested) in case of disagreement with the decisions of the head of the enforcement authority or a higher-ranking head of the enforcement authority, made based on the results of considering a complaint (protest) against such decisions, actions (inaction), filed in the manner established by the legislation on enforcement proceedings. Complaints (protests) can be filed within ten days from the date of receipt of the decisions of the head of the enforcement authority, made based on the results of considering the complaint (protest) against the decision, actions

(inaction) of a bailiff, the head of the enforcement authority, filed in the manner prescribed by the legislation on enforcement proceedings.

As the examination of cases shows, incorrect explanation of the appeal period for a decision made often leads to violations of the deadlines for filing complaints in the prescribed manner, which does not contribute to their timely consideration and the progress of enforcement proceedings.

The expiry of the period for applying to the court without valid reasons for appealing the decisions of bailiffs is grounds for refusing to satisfy the complaint.

According to Part 1 of Art. 360-4 of the Civil Procedure Code, complaints (protests) against the decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff, as well as against the decisions, actions (inaction) of the head of the enforcement authority related to the direct execution of enforcement documents, must comply with the requirements established by Articles 109 and 110 of this Code.

In accordance with subparagraph 4.2 of paragraph 2 of Annex 13 to the Tax Code of the Republic of Belarus, the consideration of a complaint against the decisions, actions (inaction) of a bailiff is subject to a state fee in the amount of 1 base unit.

Cases are scheduled for hearing with the summoning of the parties to the enforcement proceedings, bailiffs, heads of enforcement authorities, whose decisions, actions (inaction) are being appealed.

According to Part 2 of Art. 360-5 of the Civil Procedure Code, the non-appearance of the specified persons, duly notified of the time and place of the complaint hearing, is not an obstacle to the consideration of the complaint (protest).

Of the complaints against the actions of bailiffs considered by the courts, more than 50% were found to be justified.

In the event of satisfaction of complaints, court practice regarding the recovery of state fees is varied: either directly from the bailiffs, or from the main department of justice of the Vitebsk regional executive committee.

By court decision, complaint K. against the bailiff's decisions on returning writ of execution without initiating enforcement proceedings was recognized as justified and satisfied. From the bailiff to

K. was awarded 98 rubles in state duty refund. The prosecutor filed a protest against the said decision.

According to Art. 1 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Bailiffs", bailiffs are persons who hold positions in the bodies of compulsory enforcement of court decisions and other enforcement documents and are directly engaged in the enforcement of court decisions and other enforcement documents in accordance with their job responsibilities.

According to para. 9 of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus "On some issues of improving the organization of enforcement of court decisions and other enforcement documents", the Ministry of Justice and the relevant regional (Minsk city) executive committees are responsible for the results of the activities of the bodies of compulsory enforcement.

Consequently, the responsibility for the results of the activities of the bailiff of the department of compulsory enforcement is assigned to the main department of justice of the Vitebsk regional executive committee.

The decisions on returning enforcement documents without initiating enforcement proceedings were made by the bailiff in connection with the performance of his official duties.

According to Art. 937 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Belarus, a legal entity or a citizen shall compensate for the harm caused by his employee in the performance of his labor (service, official) duties.

Since the actions of the bailiff are related to the performance of labor duties, the compensation for the costs incurred by K. for payment of state duty in the amount of 98 rubles shall be assigned to the main department of justice of the Vitebsk regional executive committee, which was not involved in the case.

By the ruling of the judicial board for civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, the prosecutor's protest was satisfied, and the court's decision was overturned. The case was sent for a new consideration to the court of first instance. Upon new consideration, a reversal of the court's decision was made, and 98 rubles were recovered from K. in favor of the bailiff. From the main department of justice of Vitebsk

The regional executive committee in favor of K. was awarded a refund of state duty in the amount of 98 rubles.

Senior Prosecutor of the Department for Supervision
of Compliance with the Law of Judicial
Decisions in Civil Cases
of the Regional Prosecutor's Office
Maria Dukhnova