Winning a court is not a victory. This is only a temporary advantage. Finally, everything ends when the force of a court decision comes into force. More on this.
What is the strength of a court decision that has entered into legal force?
A bit of theory. The strength of a court decision that has entered into legal force presupposes the mandatory execution of a verdict for all participants in the process.
This means that after winning the process, you must wait for a certain time, after which it is already possible to drink champagne. How much depends on the nature of the lawsuit. When does a court decision take effect? There are common principles for common civil cases. The time depends on whether the other party appealed the verdict or not. If not, then the court decision in the case is final only after a possible deadline for appeal. For example, if you have 30 days to appeal, then for 31 days you can celebrate success in court. But here everything is conditional. The opponent can restore the deadline for filing an appeal. In this case, the irrevocability of the decision is postponed until the meeting of the board of the Regional Court. Only after an appeal does the verdict finally enter into legal force.
Of course, you can cancel it at the cassation instances. For example, in a civil case there are two of them:
- Presidiums of the regions.
- Board of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
Six months are given for filing in civil cases in both of the above instances, indefinitely in criminal cases. But even with a six-month deadline, the other party can restore the procedural deadlines for filing. Of course, without good, justified reasons it is not so easy to do this, but, as practice shows, they are always for those who need it. Therefore, the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation can be constantly canceled and changed.
If the other party appeals the verdict of the first instance within the time allotted for this, then in this case you can finally rejoice after the meeting of the board of appeals of the regional court. Timing, of course, will be delayed.
Calculation example
For example, a court decision was made for violation of a loan agreement. The debtor was required to pay the required amount. He is given 30 days to appeal. It is after this period that the decision will enter into force. However, do not forget that under certain conditions he can restore it.
If the debtor filed an appeal after 29 days, then you will have to wait for the meeting of the Judicial Board, which makes the final decisions.
The concept of correspondence solutions
The most obscure question for ordinary citizens: "When does a court decision in absentia enter into force?" This question gives rise to myth among inexperienced lawyers. It lies in the fact that, allegedly, under certain conditions, an absentee decision may never come into force if you do not get a copy of the verdict in your hands.
This stems from a misinterpretation of the rules of the civil procedure code. According to him, within seven days after receiving a copy of a decision in absentia, a citizen has the right to cancel it. Within a month after the refusal to satisfy the request for cancellation, or after the expiration of the deadlines for this procedural action, he must appeal. Consequently, if the court made a decision, but didn’t see a copy of it in the mailbox and didn’t come to the court on its own to get it, it will never enter into legal force.
This theory is broken down into the irreconcilable faces of employees of the Federal Bailiff Service, who block all bank accounts and seize property.
If no one cancels it, then the court decision in absentia enters into force after all the deadlines for filing an appeal. That is, after 40 days (3 days the court makes a reasoned decision, 7 days are given for the possibility of cancellation, 30 days for submission to a higher authority).
The nuances of restoring the deadline for the cancellation of an absentee decision, or “Conflicting” interpretations of the Supreme Court
The restoration of the deadlines for the cancellation of the absentee verdict has its own nuances. If from the moment the court made the decision, less than the deadline for appeal to higher instances has passed, then the deadlines for submitting an application for cancellation can be restored. However, the position of the Supreme Court on this issue, to put it mildly, is strange. According to his explanation in the Practice Review, after the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, you cannot file a motion to restore the deadline for canceling the verdict. However, this procedural action on appeal is permitted.
Legal logic, to be honest, is not entirely clear. This is what many lawyers say. Why can one term be restored for one solution, but not for others? However, this, apparently, is a necessary measure, since the courts of first instance are literally overwhelmed with property and family "showdowns". In a crisis, people stop paying for loans, often get divorced. Decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation precisely on these issues are growing rapidly in quantitative terms, which, of course, affects their quality. The restriction of filing in the first instance, apparently, is designed to “unload” them a little.
Court orders
Court orders are simplified verdicts of justices of the peace on petty property, certain family or business disputes. They are based on unconditional, from the point of view of jurisprudence, evidence: loan agreements, receipts, acts of transfer and acceptance, etc.
A court order differs from an absentee decision in that it is relatively easy to reverse. It is enough to write an objection, without explaining the reasons, and this will be enough from the point of view of civil procedure legislation to cancel it.
A court order comes into force after a ten-day period for appeal. If he is admitted through a fault recognized by the court as respectful, then he can be restored by an appropriate petition.
There is a solution - there is no execution
In Russia, a violation of a court decision is frequent. It manifests itself:
- In inaction, that is, failure to comply with the requirements of the verdict.
- In actions aimed at obstructing the implementation of the provisions of decisions.
You can’t delay
Some decisions must be executed immediately, one might say, at the exit from the courtroom. These include:
- Payment of wages.
- Reinstatement of an unlawfully dismissed employee.
- Payment of alimony.
- Voting on the electoral list.
Sanctions for Failure
The strength of a court decision that has entered into legal force presupposes its mandatory enforcement. But citizens do not always fulfill the requirements. For deliberate non-execution, an administrative fine is imposed.
The debtor has sanctions for the following actions:
- Refusal to provide information on dismissal from the last place of work.
- Providing false information about property rights.
- Ignoring the demands of bailiffs.
- Refusal to provide information about the change of work, study, residence.
For individuals, the fine is from 1 thousand to 2.5 thousand rubles; for officials - from 10 thousand to 20 thousand rubles; for legal entities - from 35 thousand to 100 thousand rubles.
For persons who are not debtors, for non-compliance with the requirements of executive documents fines are provided in the amount of:
- For individuals - from 2 thousand to 2.5 thousand rubles.
- For officials - from 15 thousand to 20 thousand rubles.
- For legal entities - from 50 thousand to 100 thousand rubles.
Criminal liability for non-enforcement of court decisions
For certain categories of persons, for non-enforcement of a court decision, even criminal liability may arise:
- Employees of municipal institutions.
- Representatives of power structures.
- Government employees.
However, not any non-enforcement of a court decision must necessarily be punished with a “criminal offense”. An important factor in initiating a criminal case is the malicious nature of ignoring.
Who defines malice?
The concept of “malice” is not defined in the legislation. However, judicial practice over the years has already accumulated enough precedents that define this concept.
So, according to court decisions, malicious violators are those who were able to fulfill the requirements, but they didn’t purposefully do it for no apparent reason. They periodically received letters and orders for the immediate execution of requirements, but they also ignored them. Therefore, do not neglect judicial requirements. As you can see, the consequences can greatly affect the fate of the future.