The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation, considered the case № 420/5465/18 and found that the condition for imposing a fine on the debtor in the enforcement proceedings is non-compliance with the enforcement document (court decision) without good reason.
Circumstances of the case
It is known from the case file that the Odessa District Administrative Court received a statement of claim from the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Odessa region to the Office of the State Executive Service of the Main Territorial Department of Justice in Odessa region, in which the plaintiff asks to declare illegal and cancel the decision decisions of the Department of the State Executive Service of the Main Territorial Department of Justice in Odesa Oblast on imposition of a fine in the amount of UAH 5,100.00.In support of his claims, the plaintiff stated that the impugned decision is illegal and subject to annulment, as it was adopted without taking into account all the circumstances of the case.By the decision of the Odessa District Administrative Court, upheld by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the statement of claim was denied in full.
The conclusion of the Supreme Court
Judges of the Supreme Court stressed, analyzing the above provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings" in the context of this case, it should be noted that the imposition of a fine for failure to comply with a decision obliging the debtor to perform certain actions is a type of legal liability. knitting.The application of such a response measure is the duty of the state executor and is aimed at ensuring the implementation of the purpose of enforcement proceedings as the final stage of court proceedings.
The condition for imposing a fine on the debtor in the enforcement proceedings is his failure to enforce the enforcement document (court decision) without good reason. Depending on the nature of the legal relationship and the content of the obligation, its enforcement takes place within the enforcement proceedings, good reasons may be those circumstances that created objective obstacles to non-performance and which the debtor was impossible or difficult to overcome.
An analysis of the legal norms applicable to the disputed legal relations gives grounds to conclude that the debtor's failure to comply with a court decision only without good reason entails certain consequences established by the norms of the Law. That is, at the time of the decision of the state executor to impose a fine, the fact of non-execution of the court decision by the debtor without valid reasons must be established.
The Supreme Court noted that in the sense of the above provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings", objective reasons that made it impossible or significantly complicated the execution of the decision by the debtor and that did not depend on his own will can be considered valid.
In the disputed case, the reason for non-execution of the court decision in case № 815/695/18 was the lack of appropriate financial support in view of the adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of February 21, 2018 № 103 "On recalculation of pensions for persons discharged from military service and some other categories of persons ", which regulates the procedure for payment of funds for the period from January 1, 2016 and thereafter.This Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 103 determines the procedure for payment of listed pensions, which, in particular, provides for such payments after the allocation of funds for their financing from the state budget, without changing the regulation of legal relations regarding the recalculation of pensions for former police officers.Thus, the specified resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 103 of February 21, 2018 actually introduced a phased procedure for payment of pensions for former servicemen transferred for the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, thus stipulating payment of these pensions by allocating funds from the state budget .In this case, the plaintiff did not have an objective financial opportunity to enforce the court decision, as funds from the State Budget, according to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 103, for the payment of these pensions for the period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 in 2018 did not stand out. Therefore, in the context of the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff did not transfer these funds without good reason.The state executor in the contested decision on imposition of a fine did not provide a reasoned justification for recognizing or not recognizing the reasons for non-compliance with the court decision as invalid.Therefore, the Supreme Court considers that the impugned decision of the state executor on imposition of a fine in the amount of UAH 5,100.00 is subject to cancellation.
Source:https://borgexpert.com