In relation to the enforcement document, liability is provided for non-fulfillment of the legal requirements of the bailiff
"By the resolution of the Department of Justice of South Kazakhstan region (hereinafter - the Department) dated August 8, 2016, the Chief Accountant of the branch of the Joint Stock Company "" paramilitary railway guard of the Republic of Kazakhstan "" (hereinafter - the company) in Shymkent was found guilty under Article 670 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan E., for which an administrative fine of 21,210 tenge in the amount of ten monthly calculation indices was imposed as a punishment." By the resolution of the specialized administrative court of Shymkent dated November 11, 2016, the resolution of the Department was unchanged, and the complaint of E. was dismissed. The court of first instance concluded that E. committed an offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 670 of the Administrative Code. That is, in the opinion of the court, it is connected with the execution of the enforcement document by the bailiff, including the place of work of the debtor and his income, the fact that the withholding was carried out in accordance with the enforcement document and the collected amount was sent to the recoverer, the debtor's application of the foreclosure on the amounts of money and property of other individuals and legal entities, In fact, in accordance with Article 100 of the law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 2, 2010 "on enforcement proceedings and the status of bailiffs", persons who are in labor relations with the debtor or receive income within the time period appointed by the bailiff, on the place of work and income of the debtor, on the withholding in accordance with the enforcement document and on the, he is obliged to provide consistent data on his new place of work or place of residence.
In relation to the enforcement document, liability is provided for non-fulfillment of the legal requirements of the bailiff
Failure to comply with these requirements of the bailiff entails administrative liability. However, these norms provide for liability for non-fulfillment of the legal requirements of the bailiff in relation to the enforcement document. As it is known from the documents of the administrative case, in the letter of the head of the Al-Farabi territorial Department of bailiffs - senior acting bailiff of the Department for the execution of judicial acts of the South Kazakhstan region S. sent to the branch of the company in Shymkent dated February 3, 2012, it is indicated to return the writ of execution to the specified territorial Department of bailiffs after the full execution of the writ in respect of zh. Therefore, the Shymkent branch of the company was obliged to notify the territorial Department of bailiffs of the execution document only in full execution and dismissal of the debtor. Despite this, in a letter from the director of the company's branch in Shymkent to the senior bailiffs of the Al-Farabi, Abay and Enbekshi territorial departments of the Department for the execution of judicial acts of the South Kazakhstan region of May 12, 2015, T. indicated that in accordance with the Order of the Company dated April 10, 2015, the rifle team of the branch in Shymkent, including zh., was transferred to the branch of the company in Almaty. In this regard, in favor of Ch., the debtor informed that the writ of execution on the recovery of alimony from zh., as well as the writ of execution in relation to other debtors working in the Shymkent branch, was sent on the same day by the acceptance and Transfer Act to the branch of the company in Almaty to ensure the further execution of the documents. In turn, it is known that the place of work of debtor Zh. is society. He was not fired, the employer did not terminate the employment contract with him, he remained in his former service in the rifle team. Moreover, the execution of the writ of execution in relation to him is not completed. Because it is subject to periodic payments.
Withholding from his salary, as well as all income, was periodically carried out, and it was not stopped, twenty-five percent monthly alimony was collected in favor of Ch. In this case, the specialized judicial board fully agrees with the arguments of the claim that there is no reason to believe that the legal requirements of the bailiff have not been fulfilled. In this regard, the conclusions of the Department and the court of first instance that the Chief Accountant of the company's branch in Shymkent E. did not fulfill the requirements of the bailiff provided for in Part 1 of Article 670 of the Administrative Code are unfounded. On the basis of the above, the specialized Judicial Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan canceled the decisions of the Department of Justice of South Kazakhstan region and the court of first instance in relation to E. and reduced the proceedings in the case due to the absence of the composition of the offense provided for by Part 1 of Article 670 of the Code of administrative offenses.
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
