The need for interpretation of the judge’s thoughts expressed on paper arises when elements of ambiguity, contradiction, or fuzziness are revealed in them. Often the lack of certainty is hidden in the resolution chapter of the document, which entails a shortage of specific measures for its implementation.
To shed light on the intricacies of the thoughts of officials is a way to eliminate the shortcomings of a court decision. Sometimes a vague statement of the circumstances accepted by the court as established and giving ground for conclusions requires an explanation of the motives of the wording. Practice shows that this usually happens with the actual justification of the motivation part of the document.
It should be borne in mind that the explanation of the court decision cannot be aimed at changing it (even partially) or raising for discussion issues that did not participate in the proceedings. That is, the government official should only present the previous document in a more complete and clear form.
The right to clarify a court decision belongs to the body that issued it. He can comment on the text both at the request of the persons who took part in the case, and at the request of the bailiff. The latter is entitled to raise such a question on the basis of Article 32 of the RF Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" dated 02.10.2007 No. 229-FZ.
In the event that the court of first instance changes or makes a different decision, the explanation is carried out by the body that put the final point in the case. If it is impossible to attract an official to clarify the decision of the court that issued it, this work is performed by another official of the institution of the same level.
There are some conditions under which it is possible to initiate a process of clarification: the first - the verdict should not be implemented, and the second - the term of compulsory execution has not expired. Enforcement of court decisions makes their interpretation impossible. Partial implementation of a prescription requires clarification of unfulfilled paragraphs, but subject to the existence of a deadline for implementation.
Experts do not consider the application for clarification of the court decision, filed after its implementation or after the expiration of the period, and which has not been restored,.
Lighting a document that is not
subject to enforcement; may not be limited by any period. Statements by individuals and legal entities regarding the requirement for competent commenting on verdicts are considered on the basis of general rules in
civil proceedings by way of an open court with notice of the participants. The failure to appear of persons notified of the forthcoming clarification of the decision shall not be considered grounds for adjournment.
The explanation is made in the form of an official court ruling as an independent procedural document. It is filed with a case file and considered an integral part of the solution. The court ruling resulting from the clarification may be appealed to a higher court either independently or together with a decision in accordance with the general rules of the Civil Procedure Code.