Lawyer under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court decision

When contacting a criminal lawyer, it is preferable to have an experienced specialist in a certain category of crimes, which would include Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court verdict, court decision or other judicial act. And this is true, you have already taken the necessary step. You have visited the website of a criminal lawyer competent in matters of defense under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is likely that you or your relative need protection under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court decision means a criminal case has either been initiated, or the issue is being resolved. A lawyer provided by the investigator in accordance with Art. 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation worries you, you are looking for a replacement for him, this is not surprising, and you are doing absolutely the right thing. Follow your decision right now, and dial the phone number listed on the website, talk to a lawyer under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court decision may be the best thing you can do to protect you or your loved one from criminal prosecution.

Non-execution of court decisions: main provisions

Judicial decisions are one of the forms of judicial decisions, which, when entering into legal force:

• is mandatory for all citizens and organizations, state authorities and local governments, public associations;
• is subject to unconditional execution throughout the Russian Federation.

Failure to comply with a judicial act manifests itself in certain forms:

• failure to take actions directly aimed at implementing the decision, for example, ignoring demands to pay compensation to the victim;
• carrying out actions aimed at preventing the implementation of the provisions of a judicial act, for example, prohibiting the head of the human resources department from reinstating an employee who was fired illegally.

The court decision must be executed:

• immediately as soon as the court decision has entered into legal force;
• immediately after the decision is made, if it concerns:
• payment of wages to the employee for 3 months;
• alimony payments;
• reinstatement to work;
• inclusion of a citizen of the Russian Federation in the list of voters or referendum participants.

In cases where voluntary execution of a court decision does not occur, compulsory enforcement systems are used. A person may be held accountable for violating the provisions of the law on enforcement proceedings.

Court decision - what is it?

Judicial decisions within the meaning of the law are:

• verdicts (both guilty and acquittal);
• decisions in criminal cases - for example, on the release of a convicted person due to changes in criminal legislation, on the crediting of time in custody;
• determinations - for example, on ordering an examination, transferring a case with jurisdiction to another court, etc.;
• decisions, decrees and determinations in civil cases are the result of consideration of claims or applications on the merits. For example, the outcome of the proceedings of a claim for recovery of an amount, an application to determine the place of residence of a child, division of property, etc.;
• decisions and rulings in arbitration cases – the result of consideration of a dispute between legal entities and (or) individual entrepreneurs;
• court decisions on administrative offenses - for example, under articles on drinking alcohol in a public place or appearing drunk in society, when the sanction provides for administrative arrest;
• decisions on administrative cases , which are considered by judges on the basis of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation. These include proceedings on statements of disagreement with the actions of government officials (unreasonable refusal of registration at the place of residence, registration of citizenship, etc.);
• court decisions on complaints filed with the court in accordance with Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation - when applicants do not agree with the refusal to initiate a criminal case, to terminate the case, etc.

Any of the above judicial acts is subject to execution from the day following the date of entry into force. In different situations, the period during which entry into force occurs is different. For example:

• sentence - within 10 days from the date of proclamation;
• resolution on a complaint considered in accordance with Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation - within 10 days, but the decision on the selection of such preventive measures as house arrest or detention - within only 3 days;
• decision in a civil case - within a month from the date of the full decision, but if the case was considered in a simplified manner, then 15 days.

Some types of decisions are executed immediately:

1. about reinstatement at work;
2. on payment of wages;
3. on inclusion in voter lists;
4. on the payment of alimony for maintenance.

A stamp is placed on the judicial act regarding its entry into legal force, and a copy is sent to the body that is obliged to execute it.
For example, according to a decision on collection, a writ of execution is sent to the bailiffs; on recognition of the refusal to register the transfer of rights to real estate - in Rosreestr; a copy of the sentence is sent for execution to the penal inspection or other bodies of the penal system. If a judicial act is not executed, the authority of the judiciary as a whole is thereby undermined. After all, often the judicial authority is the last one whose powers really help people resolve disputes and put an end to this or that conflict.

For the victim, a verdict is a way to restore social justice and punish the offender; The solution for the plaintiff is the opportunity to recover damages. In the case when a judicial act is ignored, those norms and laws that stand up for the protection of the weak become unfounded and unconvincing. That is why Russian law provides for the liability of those for whom a court ruling that has entered into legal force does not mean anything.

Administrative liability for failure to comply with a court decision

Judicial acts in administrative cases are carried out after they enter into legal force, with the exception of cases of immediate execution, in the manner established by the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation. At the same time, administrative liability for violation of the requirements of the legislation on enforcement proceedings and for non-execution of a court decision is established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. This type of liability is provided for individuals, organizations and officials. As a rule, the penalty is expressed in the form of an administrative fine.

Failure to comply with a court decision entails a fine on individuals in the amount of 1,000 to 2,500 rubles; on officials

— from 10,000 to 20,000 rubles; for legal entities - from 35,000 to 100,000 rubles (clause 1 of article 17.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) for the debtor in the case when:

• ignoring the demands of the bailiff;
• failure to provide information about dismissal from the last place of work;
• providing false information about property rights;
• failure to provide information about changing the address of residence, work or study, receiving pension payments or other income.

Imposition of a fine on individuals in the amount of 2,000 to 2,500 rubles; on officials

— from 15,000 to 20,000 rubles; for legal entities - from 50,000 to 100,000 rubles (clause 3 of article 17.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) for persons who are not debtors in the case when:

• ignoring the demands of bailiffs;
• refusal to receive confiscated property;
• loss of executive documentation or its untimely dispatch;
• providing false information about the debtor's possession of property;
• failure to comply with the requirements of executive documents;

Clause 2 of Article 17.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation separately considers fines for credit institutions, and clause 2.1. the same article

— for legal entities issuing securities and professional market participants. Article 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes the possibility of collecting a fine in a certain amount for failure to comply with the instructions of executive documents of a non-property nature from individuals and organizations, as well as officials. The amount of such a fine is determined taking into account the specific stage of enforcement proceedings.

Astrent: an easy way to enforce a court decision

Lawyers know that it is easier to obtain a decision in their favor than to achieve execution. There are plenty of unscrupulous debtors. They take advantage of their impunity and the often unsatisfactory work of bailiffs. This also applies to measures of a non-property nature, when the losing party must take certain actions. For example, demolish an unauthorized building or clear someone else’s property from your property. According to official statistics from the FSSP, in the first half of 2022, only every fourth decision was executed (213,631 out of 837,338). For some specific types of production the figures are even lower. For example, in the first six months of 2019, only every sixth demand for the demolition of unauthorized buildings of legal entities was fulfilled (90 out of 604).

One of the remedies that can help the lender is astrent. This is a fine for failure to comply with a judicial act in kind, which can be imposed as a flat amount or as a percentage for each day, week or month of inaction by the debtor. It appeared in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of April 4, 2014 No. 22 “On some issues of awarding money to a recoverer for failure to execute a judicial act,” and in 2015 new rules came into force in the Civil Code.

The astrent must encourage the debtor to quickly fulfill the requirement if he has money in his accounts that could be lost. But, as research shows, it is not widely used in judicial practice.

Astrents - frequent or rare

Fairness, proportionality and the prohibition of profit from dishonest behavior are the principles for the appointment of an astrent (clause 32 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of March 24, 2016 No. 7 “On the application by courts of certain provisions of the Civil Code on liability for violation of obligations”). The Plenum of the Supreme Court orients that non-execution of a court decision should not be clearly more beneficial than execution. According to Casebook, the arbitration system imposes approximately 1,000–2,000 citations per year. The most popular are legal penalties, which are accrued daily. They lead by a significant margin from weekly and monthly. “Astrent is effective when it is assigned for each day of non-fulfillment of obligations,” comments partner KA Mineev and partners Mineev and partners Federal Rating. Anna Kindeeva.

“Astrents could be used more often,” believes Infralex partner Infralex Federal Rating. group Arbitration proceedings (medium and small disputes - mid market) group Bankruptcy (including disputes) (high market) group PPP/Infrastructure projects group Land law/Commercial real estate/Construction group Digital economy group Antitrust law (including disputes) group Corporate law/Mergers and acquisitions (high market) group Family and inheritance law group Transport law group Pharmaceuticals and healthcare group Tax consulting and disputes (Tax consulting) group Tax consulting and disputes (Tax disputes) group Private capital group Criminal law Yulia Karpova. In her opinion, the inertia of thinking affects: not all lawyers remember this institution, which is relatively new to Russian law. Kindeeva disagrees with the fact that astrents are in little demand. She reminds that they do not apply to the most common monetary requirements. At the same time, creditors often turn to attorneys with regard to the enforcement of decisions on non-material claims. For example, transfer a certain thing, perform work under a contract, and so on, Kindeeva lists.

Many courts refuse to apply astrent or reduce it to an extremely insignificant amount, says lawyer S&K Vertical S&K Vertical Federal Rating. group Bankruptcy (including disputes) (mid market) group Arbitration proceedings (major disputes - high market) group Dispute resolution in courts of general jurisdiction group Family and inheritance law group Private capital 3rd place By revenue per lawyer (more than 30 lawyers) 10th place By revenue 24th place By number of lawyers Profile, the lawyer suggests. And the advisor to the law firm Ilyashev and Partners Ilyashev and Partners Federal rating. group Bankruptcy (including disputes) (high market) group International litigation group Corporate law/Mergers and acquisitions (mid market) Company profile Dmitry Konstantinov connects this with the fact that the average Russian judge is not ready to evaluate anything other than the immediate subject of the dispute and formulate your own opinion on this topic. “We are doing poorly both with contractual penalties and with the collection of legal expenses,” says Konstantinov.

Astrents – big or small

How to calculate the size of an astrent? If the obligation or its subject matter has a monetary value, then they usually start from this amount, says lawyer KA Yukov and Partners Yukov and Partners Federal Rating. group Dispute resolution in courts of general jurisdiction group Arbitration proceedings (major disputes - high market) group Bankruptcy (including disputes) (high market) group Criminal law 4th place By number of lawyers 12th place By revenue 17th place By revenue per lawyer (more than 30 lawyers) Company profile Ekaterina Baglaeva. For example, in case No. A65-123/2017, where the plaintiff demanded to make up for shortfalls, the court appointed an astrent in the amount of 0.1% of the cost of the shipment per day (initially the plaintiff asked for 0.5% per day). In case No. A41-7055/13, where the plaintiff was prevented from using the plot, he calculated the court penalty from the amount of land tax.

“Pravo.ru” has compiled a “rating” of the biggest astrents. He confirms that the size of the astrent is influenced primarily by the “issue price.”

The largest astrents as a percentage of the amount of debt for 2016–2019*

The largest astrents with fixed amounts for 2016–2019*

* – according to Casebook.

Another way to justify the size of the astrent is suggested by Babin: you can calculate the approximate amount of the defendant’s benefit from failure to comply with a judicial act and demonstrate this to the court. This advice is based on the principle that failure to comply with a decision should not be more advantageous than compliance. In addition, according to the lawyer, the courts periodically take into account the criteria from the canceled decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court: the complexity of executing a judicial act and the ability of the defendant to quickly execute it, the property status of the defendant.

RUB 31.8 million weekly

Largest astrent (according to Casebook)

For example, the property position of the defendant, the bankrupt Adler Poultry Farm, was taken into account by the appeal in case No. A32-30643/2016. There, the Department of Property Relations of the Krasnodar Territory demanded that the plots be freed from the property of the defendants. The plots had the form of permitted use “for raising poultry,” but in addition to the poultry farm, there were tire workshops, warehouses, etc. There, the department complained that they had not been dismantled for a long time, despite the court decision, and that such proximity could provoke an epidemic or epizootic. The failure to comply with the judicial act was also confirmed by the bailiff service. Therefore, officials asked to appoint an astrent in the amount of 100,000 rubles. in a day. The first instance listened to their arguments and granted the application. “The significant costs of executing a court decision cannot be considered a valid reason for not executing it,” explained the first instance. But the 15th AAS took into account that the factory was in bankruptcy proceedings and decided that a fine of 3 million rubles. per month “will not be adequate to her situation.” As a result, the penalty was reduced to 5,000 rubles. in a day.

• The Supreme Court expanded the possibilities of judicial forfeit
  October 16, 9:12
• The Supreme Court decided how to correctly award astrent
  October 16, 17:48

To determine the amount of interest in a particular case, the courts, according to Karpova, are guided by emerging practice. She advises studying it and calculating the “arithmetic mean” in such situations: “This will make it easier for the court to decide on the amount of the penalty.”

But not all obligations have a monetary value, and some don't even have an object. Here it is more difficult to determine the size of the astrent. Here, the courts either approve the amount requested by the applicant, or determine the penalty solely based on their internal conviction, says Baglaeva. According to her, the numbers in similar disputes can differ markedly. This shows an example of two cases requiring the transfer of documents:

• in proceedings No. A79-6151/2018, the court established a penalty in the amount of 1,500 rubles. per day, which is 42,000 rubles. per month (the plaintiff asked for 15,000 rubles per day);
• in dispute No. A45-15048/2012, the court established a penalty in the amount of 70,000 rubles. for the first month with an increase of 10,000 rubles. every next month, maximum – 250,000 rubles.

Refusals and successes: the experience of lawyers

In Konstantinov’s practice, there was a case when the courts refused to collect an astrent. In case No. A41-69214/16, the defendant was obliged to transfer the land plot to the plaintiff, but he did not comply with the decision. The plaintiff asked to impose a judicial penalty, but, according to the courts, he had to “refer to circumstances indicating that there are obstacles to executing the judicial act.” Three authorities explained the refusal by the fact that there was no evidence in the case of the defendant’s evasion from transferring the plot as part of enforcement proceedings. “But astrent is not just a measure of responsibility for failure to comply with a judicial act,” comments Konstantinov. “This is a mechanism for “soft” coercion of the defendant to voluntarily fulfill a non-monetary obligation.” He did not agree with the court's decision.

The courts may not refuse to collect the astrent, but reduce its amount tenfold. Kindeeva spoke about case No. A40-251505/15, where she represented the interests of the copyright holder, who was suing Metro Cash and Carry due to violation of trademark rights. In this dispute, EuroImp demanded 3.2 million rubles. compensation for failure to comply with a judicial act within one and a half years. Two instances reduced this amount to 100,000 rubles. But the cassation overturned their acts. She noted that the defendant continues to fail to comply with the court decision. The Moscow District Court recalled the position of the Constitutional Court that the protection of violated rights cannot be called effective if the judicial act is not executed. Based on the law and the instructions of the Constitutional Court, “it is unacceptable to reduce compensation for non-execution of a judicial act, because this encourages the debtor.” The first instance took these instructions into account and reduced the requested compensation not so significantly - to 1.5 million rubles.

The cassation indicated that it is impossible to significantly reduce compensation for non-execution of a judicial act, because this encourages the debtor to continue not to comply with the decision.

And sometimes the court assigns an astrent in the requested amount. He works. Managing partner of Genesis Law Firm Artyom Denisov represented the interests of the plaintiffs in a dispute over the removal of obstacles (No. A60-53371/2017). The defendant installed a barrier and did not allow the owners and tenants of a shopping center in Yekaterinburg into the parking lot. The court ordered him not to interfere with them and established a legal penalty in case of failure to comply with the decision - 43,000 rubles. per week in favor of one plaintiff and 74,000 rubles. per week in favor of the second. “We calculated the size ourselves, taking into account the space that the plaintiffs occupy in the shopping center and the proportionate plots of land under the shopping center building,” says Denisov. According to him, in order not to pay a court fine, the defendant now just needs to raise the barrier. “The decision came into force not so long ago, but judging by the fact that the principals do not call us, it is being implemented,” says the lawyer.

The Supreme Court told whether to pay state duty when collecting astrent

If the court appoints an astrent, it can make many debtors more accommodating. Another effect of such a measure, as a study of judicial practice has shown, is that a significant number of acts imposing a penalty are canceled by settlement agreements. This is how case No. A65-1396/2015 ended, in which the airline demanded that Perspektiva-2011 remove the plane from the land plot (the case was included in the “hit parade” of the biggest astrents). The plaintiff achieved the imposition of an astrent in the amount of 1 million rubles. at a time and in case of further failure to fulfill 500,000 rubles. for the first week, 600,000 rubles. for the second and so on. Judging by the case materials, the airline managed to receive 1 million rubles from the defendant, and then the defendant went to appeal. By this day, he had fulfilled the requirements and persuaded the plaintiff to sign a settlement agreement.

• Evgenia Efimenko

• Arbitration process

The procedure for bringing to administrative responsibility

There are no strictly approved regulations that would regulate the voluntary execution of orders contained in the text of a court decision. As a rule, legal liability for persons for failure to comply with a court decision occurs in the period after the fact of their failure to comply with the instructions contained in enforcement proceedings is established. This happens in the following order:

1. The bailiff receives a writ of execution from the court or from the claimant, on the basis of which enforcement proceedings are initiated.
2. If the debtor fails to comply with the instructions of the enforcement documents, the bailiff sets a new deadline for the execution of the instructions for this person and issues a resolution to collect the enforcement fee. Thus, non-execution or improper execution of a court decision entails the imposition of property liability on the violator.
3. If the debtor fails to comply with the requirements of the writ of execution within the new period without good reason, the bailiff draws up a protocol on the administrative offense.

In addition to administrative liability, violation of the norms of enforcement proceedings provides for criminal liability or other types of liability regulated by current industry legislation. For example, Article 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes punishment for citizens, legal entities and officials, state authorities and local self-government for an unfulfilled decision of an arbitration court in the form of a judicial fine.

Collection procedure

The procedure for collecting a sum of money in connection with non-execution of a court decision is determined by Art. 308.3 of the Civil Code, as well as by Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated March 24, 2016 No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 7). In accordance with these acts, the basis for the collection of this type of sanction is the debtor’s failure to comply with a court decision, by which he was found obliged to fulfill his obligation in kind.

Among the obligations for non-fulfillment of which a judicial penalty may be imposed, paragraph 28 of Resolution No. 7 means:

• performing certain actions (selling goods, performing a certain type of work, etc.);
• abstaining from actions determined by a court decision (for example, a ban on performing any actions with property);
• execution of a judicial act obliging the plaintiff to remove obstacles to the exercise of property rights that do not imply restrictions on ownership.

If there are violations of these obligations, the creditor has the right to send to the court a demand for the collection of a legal penalty from the guilty party.

Applications to the court for the collection of legal penalties can be downloaded for free by clicking on the picture below:

Moreover, as stated in paragraph 29 of Resolution No. 7, any agreement that the party to the obligation undertakes not to collect a legal penalty is invalid and does not deprive the party of this right. At the same time, the parties are not deprived of the right to conclude a settlement agreement at the stage of enforcement proceedings.

By virtue of paragraph 30 of Resolution No. 7, this type of sanction is applicable only to civil legal relations that do not stem from monetary obligations.

Criminal liability for failure to comply with a court decision

In case of failure to comply with a court decision, a punishment provided for by criminal law may be imposed. According to Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the following may be held liable:

• employees of commercial and other organizations;
• civil servants and employees of government agencies;
• representatives of government structures;
• employees of municipal institutions.

Important! Not every failure to comply with a court decision for these persons can be regarded as a criminal offense, since when qualifying this act, an important factor is the establishment of its malicious nature.

Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for the following penalties:

• fine - a maximum amount of 200,000 rubles or corresponding to the amount of the offender’s salary or other income for a period of up to 18 months;
• inability to hold a specific position or carry out a certain type of activity for up to 5 years;
• compulsory work - up to 480 hours;
• forced labor - up to 2 years;
• arrest - up to 6 months;
• imprisonment for up to 2 years.

In addition to the above, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for failure to comply with a court decision in the form of malicious evasion of a parent from paying alimony for children under the age of majority or evasion of payments by able-bodied children to their parents.

Individuals or the head of a company obliged by a court decision to repay their accounts payable, in case of malicious failure to comply with this court decision, may be punished with a fine, forced or compulsory labor, arrest or imprisonment

- Article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Malicious failure to comply with a court decision

It is worth immediately noting that the current Russian legislation in its content does not have a clear definition of such a term as “maliciousness”, however, already established judicial practice makes it possible to establish malicious failure to comply with a court decision in the presence of the following factors, such as:

• according to the cassation ruling of the Magadan Regional Court dated February 15, 2012: “The person deliberately did not take real actions or prevented the implementation of real actions within the established period for the execution of the judicial act”;
• according to the appeal ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated September 23, 2015: “The street during this period had all the necessary conditions and there were no visible obstacles to complying with the court’s orders”;
• according to the appeal ruling of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra court dated October 23, 2012: “The person was repeatedly notified in writing of possible criminal liability or brought to justice under Art. 17.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation"

Important! Despite the existence of specific judicial practice, in each specific case the court independently assesses the presence of signs of malice, taking into account all existing circumstances, therefore, the above list of factors is very general in nature.

In addition, we note that malice is a mandatory part of the objective side of the crime provided for in Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. So, if an employee by his actions prevented the execution of a court decision, but his actions do not show signs of malice, then the employer can apply only one type of disciplinary liability to him.

Commentary to Art. 315 Criminal Code

1. The subject of the crime is a sentence, court decision or other judicial act that has entered into legal force. For these concepts, see the commentary to Art. 305 CC.

2. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the form of inaction or action for: a) malicious failure to comply with the specified judicial act; b) preventing their execution. Failure to comply means a person’s evasion of the obligation to execute a judicial act or organize its execution or the commission of actions prohibited in the relevant judicial act. Maliciousness is manifested in repeated (if there is a real opportunity) non-compliance, including after a repeated warning. Obstruction consists of opposing legal activities related to the execution of a judicial act or failure to take measures to create the necessary conditions for the timely execution of a judicial act.

3. Failure to take measures based on a private ruling of the court or on the proposal of a judge is qualified under Art. 17.4 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

4. The subject when committing a crime by malicious evasion is special: a person who is a representative of the authorities, a civil servant, a municipal employee, an employee of a state or municipal institution, a commercial or other organization; when committing a crime by obstruction, general.