The Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern Federal District told about the recovery of damages from the bailiff who terminated the enforcement proceedings against the liquidated company
Arbitration court of the Far Eastern district has published the review of practice № 1-2022. The selection contains positions elaborated by the Judicial Board for consideration of disputes from civil and other legal relations, and the Judicial Board for consideration of disputes from administrative and other public legal relations. The second block contains a position on the recovery of damages from the bailiff who terminated the enforcement proceedings due to the exclusion of the debtor from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (clause 8).
The administration sued the debt for rent, and enforcement proceedings were instituted against the company. Due to the lack of property and funds in the debtor’s accounts, the proceedings were terminated. The administration then resubmitted a writ of execution to the FSB. The bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings due to the debtor’s exclusion from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.
Believing that the bailiff had performed his duties improperly, the administration sent a claim to the FSSP with a demand to compensate the damage. Since the claim went unanswered, litigation ensued. The courts satisfied the claims of the administration, considering that the causal connection between the actions (or inaction) of the bailiff and the resulting damage was proven. However, the district court dismissed the claim.
The cassation court called the conclusions about the proven causal link incorrect. The lower courts found that within the framework of other enforcement proceedings against the company the bailiff sent requests to regional agencies and banks, levied execution on monetary funds, prohibited registration of the debtor’s vehicles, restricted cash operations and seized the property. The proceeds were used to repay the debt of one of the debtors – in order of priority.
As of the moment of initiation of the specific enforcement proceedings, the bailiff established the absence of money and liquid assets of the debtor. Thus, there was no real possibility of enforcing the judicial act, the failure to repay the debt occurred due to objective reasons. The actions (omissions) of the defendant were not the only reason for the failure to repay the debt to the administration.
In addition, the district court explained that when the property of a liquidated company, an interested person may initiate the procedure for distribution of such property under Art. 64 of the Civil Code (Decree of the Far Eastern Federal District on case № A16-2052/2020 of July 26, 2021).