A court decision that has entered into legal force is binding on state bodies, legal entities, public associations and, in general, on all citizens of Russia. This rule is enshrined in the codes of almost all branches of law, as well as in Article 6 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation,” which states strict compliance with court decisions. Ignoring this legal requirement, that is, failure to comply with a court decision, entails liability for the violator. Which one exactly – read in our article.
Administrative liability for non-execution of decisions
Most often, for failure to comply with court decisions, they are brought to administrative liability under Art. Articles 17.14 and 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. True, it is worth making a small reservation here. In their pure form, these rules are applied specifically for violations of executive legislation. And since many executive documents are issued on the basis of a judicial act, most lawyers believe that these articles are applied for its non-execution. However, this can be argued. Indeed, in some cases, the bailiff initiates proceedings on the basis of completely different documents: a notarial agreement on the payment of alimony, certificates of the labor dispute commission, acts of the Social Insurance Fund and the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation. Therefore, everything is not so simple here.
The subjects of these offenses are both individuals and legal entities, as well as officials of various ranks.
These articles provide for the imposition of a fine in the form of a fine on citizens, legal entities and officials. Its size varies depending on the subject, the severity of the offense and the repetition. For example, for ignoring the requirements of the bailiff, citizens can be fined from 1000 to 2500 rubles, officials - from 10,000 to 20,000 rubles, and a legal entity will be forced to transfer to the budget from 30,000 to 100,000 rubles.
But for the continuation of the issuance of links by the search engine operator to personal data (or other information) about individuals on the Internet after the expiration of the period established by the bailiff, the citizens responsible for this will be fined in the amount of 300 to 500 thousand rubles. For such an act, a legal entity is subject to a fine of up to 1,000,000 rubles.
However, such cases are extremely rare. Typically, subjects are prosecuted for lesser offenses. For example, the alimony debtor does not comply with the requirements of the bailiff and does not appear to him on the scheduled days with payment receipts. (Decision of the Pervomaisky District Court of Izhevsk, Udmurt Republic in case No. 12-710/2017 dated December 25, 2017). Or the city administration did not comply with the court order and did not provide the orphan with living quarters. (Decision of the Arbitration Court of the Khabarovsk Territory in case No. A73-18427/2017 dated January 16, 2018).
Payments for violation of the right to execute a judicial act
Here we are not talking about holding the debtor (or violator) accountable, but about compensation for damages for violation of the right itself, although these materials are considered in accordance with the CAS of the Russian Federation.
As a rule, the defendants are federal and local authorities that ignored the judicial act or delayed its implementation. The lion's share of such cases is related to the failure to provide living space when the plaintiff rightfully claims it. The basis for the payment of money is the provisions of Law No. 68-FZ on compensation for violation of the right to legal proceedings.
For example, the court decided to provide housing to a former orphanage pupil. However, officials, for various reasons, did not comply with the judicial act and ignored the bailiff's order. Then the plaintiff again appealed to the court with a demand to pay him compensation for failure to comply with the decision. As a result, the judge recovered more than 90 thousand rubles from the Subject of the Russian Federation in favor of the citizen. (Decision of the Saratov Regional Court in case No. 3a-18/2018 dated January 30, 2018).
Failure to comply with an arbitration court decision
For such an offense liability is provided under Art. 332 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Citizens, legal entities, company managers, as well as officials and authorities may be fined by the court for failure to comply with a judicial act. The penalty is imposed by a ruling of the arbitration court. Its maximum amount for citizens is 2,500 rubles, for officials - 5 thousand rubles and for organizations - 100 thousand rubles. (Decree of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region on the imposition of a judicial fine in case No. A41-51881/13 dated May 29, 2015).
Who will be responsible
Any participant in the process can allow the non-execution of court sentences, decisions and acts. But not everyone faces criminal liability. Composition of the crime Art. 315 of the Criminal Code refers to special ones. The list of persons who can be brought under this article is limited:
- representatives of the authorities;
- state and municipal employees;
- employees of institutions;
- employees of commercial organizations.
Of course, all of these persons are subject to liability only if their official duties include performing actions aimed at executing a sentence or other act of the court. Individuals are not subject to this article.
However, one should not assume that failure by citizens to comply with court decisions and sentences will not have any consequences. Such actions, or, conversely, their absence, form elements of other crimes. For example, malicious evasion of payment of alimony after paternity has been established entails liability under Art. 157 of the Criminal Code, etc.
Criminal liability for failure to comply with court decisions
First of all, it is provided for in Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and applies to special subjects - individuals. Municipal and state employees, officials, as well as managers of commercial enterprises may find themselves in the dock for such a crime. The object of the criminal act, in this case, is legal relations of both a property and non-property nature.
For example, the court made a decision and collected debt from a commercial company in favor of resource supply organizations and other creditors. Subsequently, the arbitration court issued writs of execution, which were sent by the claimants to the district OSB. However, the bailiffs were never able to collect the debt. The director of the company only partially paid off the debts, and then began to evade payments. The manager registered interdependent organizations and began to withdraw money from the debtor’s current account using fictitious agency agreements and loan agreements. More precisely, he took measures to ensure that the funds did not flow into his account at all, remaining with agents and interdependent legal entities. Bailiffs repeatedly warned the “resourceful” director about criminal liability for failure to comply with court decisions. However, he didn't pay attention to it. In the end, investigators at the regional FSSP opened a criminal case against the head of the debtor under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The court found him guilty of committing a crime and fined him 120,000 rubles. (Sentence of the Emelyanovsky District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Territory in case No. 1-59/2017 dated November 23, 2017).
Thus, in order to be held accountable under this article, a combination of the following conditions is necessary: a special subject, written warnings to bailiffs about criminal liability, an individual’s opposition to the execution of a court decision and the impossibility of executing the decision by the bailiffs themselves. And here a very interesting dilemma arises - is it possible to hold a person accountable under this article if the bailiff for some reason did not fully use his powers? And you know, it turns out it’s possible.
Thus, the director of one of the Samara companies was convicted of failure to comply with court decisions. Being a developer, his company was late and did not put the house into operation on time. Shareholders filed lawsuits in the courts and won the cases. After the judicial acts entered into force, they received writs of execution and sent them to the OSB. The bailiff, in turn, sent a request to the debtor to provide financial and economic information about the company.
However, the manager did not fulfill it within the period established by law. Then the OSP warned the director about criminal liability, and then the investigator opened a case. In the end, the citizen was convicted and fined 35,000 rubles. It seems like a standard situation.
However, something else is interesting here. In pronouncing his sentence, the judge casually indicated that the defendant, at his own discretion, disposed of the funds coming into the account of his company: he paid off with suppliers, contractors, transferred membership fees and paid the bank for servicing the account. This fact was confirmed by account statements requested by a bailiff from a credit institution. But then the question arises, what did the bailiff himself do?
After all, the accused did not create interdependent persons or enter into fictitious contracts. The company continued to operate as it always had. And the OSP was simply obliged to request the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, the Federal Tax Service, the Main Directorate of the Central Bank for the Samara Region, as well as other authorities about the availability of property and accounts with the debtor. And having collected all the information, the bailiff had to send the sheets to the credit institution where the company’s account is located. And the bank would simply write off this money. This is how it is always done. Nevertheless, the OSP chose to initiate a criminal case, which ended in a conviction. (Appeal verdict of the Samara District Court of Samara (number anonymized) dated March 24, 2016).
If courts and bailiffs act in this way, then millions of Russians will easily receive a criminal record under this article. After all, many companies do not pay debt voluntarily. It is collected by bailiffs according to writs of execution.
But we digress a little. When talking about criminal liability for ignoring or even opposing the execution of a court decision, as a rule, only Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is remembered. However, the Code also knows another norm that threatens a citizen with punishment for such an offense - this is Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Responsibility under it occurs when the entity against whom a decision has been made to collect debt deliberately fails to comply with a judicial act.
For such a crime, a person faces a fine of up to 200 thousand rubles, compulsory or forced labor, arrest, or even imprisonment for up to 2 years.
For example, a resident of Khimki owed a legal entity almost more than 2.5 million rubles. The creditor went to court and collected the debt from the citizen. The decision entered into legal force and the OSB initiated enforcement proceedings. However, the person did not work anywhere and had no income at all. This is a common situation in principle. Then the bailiff handed the debtor a request that the latter contact the employment center, but the citizen ignored it. Then the investigator opened a criminal case and the court found the debtor guilty under Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, fining him 20 thousand rubles. (Sentence of the Khimki City Court of the Moscow Region (case number anonymized) dated December 4, 2017).
By the way, in this case the situation is also ambiguous. It is not clear why the offender did not declare bankruptcy? After all, now arbitration courts calmly declare bankrupt people, even those with income. And here he is completely unemployed.
What is the offense
In Art. 315 of the Criminal Code refers to malicious non-execution or obstruction of the execution of a sentence, decision or other act of the court. This definition includes:
- refusal to act (inaction);
- committing actions that do not coincide with those prescribed by the court;
- repeated refusal to perform.
In order for such actions to become a crime, the person who commits them must act with intent. If the reason for non-execution of a sentence or court decision is any objective circumstances, then it is impossible to talk about the commission of a crime. Consequently, liability for such an offense will not be criminal, but something else, for example, disciplinary.
Crime prescribed by Art. 315 of the Criminal Code, is ongoing, that is, extended over time. It begins at the moment of non-fulfillment (malicious) and ends either with prosecution or compliance with court requirements. This differs from, say, theft or kidnapping. Judicial practice under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation recognizes this crime as completed at the time of its commission.
The concept of malice, without signs of which an offense is not a crime, refers to evaluative ones. There is no exact definition in the code. Therefore, in practice, before making a decision under Art. 315, it is important for the court to examine all the circumstances to identify such a sign. In this case, the presence of intentional guilt will play a major role. But the motives that led to such actions, on the contrary, are not taken into account.
