Postponement and installment of execution of a decision by changing the method and procedure of its execution.

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 the execution of enforcement actions difficult or impossible. At the request of the parties to the enforcement proceedings, the court has the right to approve a settlement agreement concluded between them or an agreement on the settlement of a dispute (conflict) through mediation. According to the grounds provided for in Article 246 of the CPC, postponement, installment plan, or changes in the method and procedure for executing a judicial act may be granted by the court only if: the bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings; the grounds provided for in this provision of the law are available at the time the bailiff performed the enforcement actions. ; there is evidence that makes performing executive actions difficult or impossible. Judicial practice is stable on issues of postponement and installment of execution of court decisions, 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. Basically, these are judicial acts when there were no grounds for postponement, but the court of first instance granted the application. For example, by the decision of the Pavlodar City Court of August 25, 2014, the claim of CB JSC against S. the claim for debt collection through foreclosure on mortgaged property has been partially satisfied.

Postponement and installment of execution of a decision by changing the method and procedure of its execution.

Debt in the amount of KZT 3,198,859 and state duty in the amount of KZT 95,966 were collected from S. in favor of the plaintiff. S. applied to the court for a deferral due to the fact that the disputed apartment is his only dwelling and the place of residence of his family, besides, the spouse is on maternity leave. By a court ruling dated March 26, 2015, the application was satisfied, and the execution of the court's decision was postponed for a period of 12 months. By the ruling of the Appellate Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Pavlodar Regional Court dated June 01, 2015, the granting of a stay of execution of the court was refused on the grounds that the conclusions of the court of first instance are illegal. The court did not provide evidence confirming that by the time the deferral ends, the debtor will have property sufficient to execute the court's decision, and that the debtor's property status will change. There are relevant clarifications on this issue in paragraph 8 of the Supreme Court's normative resolution No. 6 dated June 29, 2009 "On certain issues of the execution of Judicial acts in civil cases", which were ignored by the court. 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. Thus, by a ruling dated January 27, 2015, the Temirtau City Court refused to satisfy P.'s application for postponement of execution of the court's decision on D.'s claim against P. for eviction, since the applicant had not provided evidence of his ability to execute the court's decision after the expiration of the delay period. In another case, the court partially satisfied D.'s application for a stay of execution of the court's decision on the claim against D. for eviction without providing other housing, the deadline for the execution of the court's decision of October 21, 2014 was postponed until May 25, 2015.  The Temirtau City Court motivated its conclusions by the fact that the debtor has two minor children born in 2006 and 2010, who started the school year, and also took into account the onset of the winter season. Thus, 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 that. The Law does not establish criteria for postponing or suspending the execution of a court decision or changing the method and procedure for executing a court decision. Therefore, in each specific case, the court must determine for itself whether there is really a need to grant a deferral, an installment plan, or a change in the method and procedure for executing a court decision. In this case, the court must take into account the interests of both the debtor and the recoverer, their property status and other noteworthy circumstances of the case, as indicated in the reasoning part of the ruling. Legislative acts provide that the issue of postponement and installment of execution of a court decision is decided by the court upon application of the parties to the enforcement proceedings. The issue of changing the method and procedure for the execution of a decision is also resolved on the basis of applications from the parties to the enforcement proceedings, as well as at the request of the State bailiff for enforcement proceedings for which the State is the recoverer (Article 246 of the CPC). 

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