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.
What threatens under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for failure to comply with a court decision
A special part of the criminal code is formulated by Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as follows:
Article 315. Failure to comply with a court sentence, court decision or other judicial act
Malicious failure by a representative of government, a civil servant, a municipal employee, as well as an employee of a state or municipal institution, commercial or other organization of a court sentence, court decision or other judicial act that has entered into legal force, as well as obstruction of their execution -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to two hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred eighty hours, or forced labor for a term of up to two years, or arrest for a term of up to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to two years.
This crime provides for a fairly severe punishment, but following the recommendations of a lawyer and acting correctly, the punishment may not be so severe.
In some cases, there is a prospect of reclassifying the act to another, lighter offense or even decriminalizing the act. But such opportunities, if they can be found, are most effectively used before the initiation of a case, at the stage of verification in accordance with Art. Art. 144-145 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Termination of an already initiated criminal case is an extremely rare case. Despite this, at any stage, the lawyer uses all possible legal methods of defense. The goal of a criminal defense lawyer is to achieve the best position for his client, a mitigation of fate, and a recognition of not guilty. It should be noted that this is not always possible, but the desire for a favorable outcome should take place in any case. CRIMINAL LAWYER call now: ☎ 8 (495) 532-75-40
The legislative framework
Evasion of the obligation to comply with court orders is punishable by law.
Liability for violations, as well as the procedure for enforcement of court decisions, are enshrined in several regulations. In particular, certain sanctions are contained in the Criminal Code, the Administrative Code, the Civil Procedure Code, etc. The procedure for the execution of court decisions is regulated by Federal Law No. 229 of 02.10.07. The normative act contains 130 articles regulating all actions of the court to coerce individuals and legal entities comply with decisions. Federal Law No. 229 also includes an article containing sanctions for failure to comply with court decisions (Article 113).
Lawyer under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court verdict, court decision or other judicial act
Lawyer under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Failure to comply with a court decision is extremely necessary for those against whom criminal prosecution has been initiated under such an article. Protection under Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is based on the use of deep practical experience of a lawyer. A lawyer, not only guided by theory, but also relying on many years of practice, will develop the most correct position to protect his client. One call to a lawyer can change the entire current situation in the opposite direction. Based on this, by seeking legal assistance in a timely manner, you retain the opportunity to use the most effective methods of defense in a criminal case than if you applied at a later stage. Call a lawyer immediately after you understand the need to seek protection in a criminal case. Our phone number is listed on the website. Contact a criminal lawyer now!
Features of evading execution of a court decision
If the court makes a certain decision, the participants in the meeting are obliged to comply with it. According to the law, the requirements specified in such a decision are of two types:
- Property. This means that a person is obliged to take actions aimed at paying something, returning a debt, things, etc.
- Non-property. The court obliges the citizen to perform a certain action not related to financial expenses. For example, to conclude or terminate an agreement, register a minor in the living space, etc.
Compliance with a court order is the responsibility of not only the plaintiff and defendant, but also third parties. For example, if it is necessary to dismiss a participant in the process, then his employer must comply with this order.
Note: failure to comply with the decision may result in administrative or criminal liability.
There are many ways to evade responsibilities. But from a legal point of view, evasion means:
- Active actions of a person. This may be the concealment of property required to pay off a debt, etc.
- Inaction. The person authorized to implement the decision, including a civil servant, ignores all court orders.
In practice, both types of non-compliance with court decisions often occur. Therefore, draft dodgers are often forced to carry out their duties. There is a standard procedure that consists of the following steps:
- Issuance by the court of the corresponding writ of execution.
- Transfer of the document to the bailiffs.
- Carrying out work to enforce the decision.
After this, the debtor is forced to communicate with bailiffs. And they have enough measures in place that can force a person to fulfill his duty. This is the seizure of property, treatment at the person’s place of work, etc. But in addition to the forced execution of the decision, there are additional types of punishment.
Responsibility in the arbitration process
In this case, the severity of the violation and the amount of punishment are determined by the arbitration court itself, and prosecution is regulated by a special norm - Art. 332 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
The main sanction is a court fine. It is imposed in the manner provided for in Art. 119-120 APC of the Russian Federation. Individuals (citizens) may be held liable in the amount of up to 2,500 rubles. If an individual fails to comply with a court decision while being an official, the fine can reach 5,000 rubles. The imposition of a fine does not eliminate the need to comply with the decision of the arbitration court.
Grounds for reversing a court decision
Incomplete clarification of significant circumstances
The basis for canceling a decision may be that the court does not examine all the information that may affect the legal position on the dispute.
The court of first instance granted a deferment of execution of the judicial act to the defendant, since he indicated that he did not have funds in his current accounts. However, the court did not examine the question of whether the debtor had other property that could be seized; the court did not fully clarify the circumstances relevant to the case. The appellate court found that the debtor also has vehicles. In this regard, there were no grounds for satisfying the application for deferment of the execution of the judicial act (resolution of the Twentieth AAS dated 05/04/12 in case No. A09-3985/2011).
Lack of proof of significant circumstances
If the court considers individual circumstances of the case and considers them established without comprehensively assessing them, this may become a basis for canceling the decision.
The court of first instance considered that the presence of a signed act of acceptance and transfer of services provided confirms that the services were provided. The appeal established that the case materials do not confirm the result of the actual provision of services by the defendant, their volume and cost. The name of the services in the act is of a formal nature; it cannot be established from the act what specific services were provided by the defendant for the plaintiff and what specific actions were performed. The court concluded that the signed act could not be adequate evidence of the provision of services and overturned the decision. He considered that there was a lack of proof of circumstances relevant to the case, which the court of first instance considered established (resolution of the Second Arbitration Court dated April 12, 2013 in case No. A82-9868/2012).
In a similar case, the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District indicated that the debt was not documented, since the case materials did not contain an act of completion and delivery of work. Consequently, the circumstances that are significant for the case, which the court of first instance considered established, have not been proven (resolution dated June 16, 2015 No. F05-7040/2015 in case No. A40-135652/14; the transfer of the case to the judicial panel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was refused by the ruling dated October 1. 15 No. 305-ES15-12069).
Inconsistency of the court's conclusions with the circumstances of the case
The basis for canceling a decision may be that the court reaches its conclusion contrary to the existing circumstances.
The court of first instance refused to satisfy the plaintiff's demands for debt collection under the contract. He pointed out that the terms of the contract did not contain provisions for additional work, so the defendant was not obliged to pay for it. The appeal concluded that a contractual relationship actually existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff completed the work and the defendant accepted it. This confirms the consumer value of the work for the defendant. Without a concluded agreement and in actual contractual relations, the defendant’s failure to pay for the disputed work led to his unjust enrichment. The appellate court noted that the findings of the first instance court did not correspond to the circumstances of the case, and overturned the decision (resolution of the Twentieth AAS dated 03/05/12 in case No. A62-5061/2011).
Violation of legal norms
Violation of legal norms in itself may not be grounds for reversing a decision. It is necessary to prove that this violation resulted or could lead to the adoption of an incorrect decision.
The court of first instance satisfied the claims, but did not take into account that the plaintiff did not confirm compliance with the claim procedure, although such an order was mandatory due to the terms of the contract (resolution of the Fifth AAC dated 03.21.12 No. 05AP-704/2012 in case No. A51-17462/2011 ). Or another case - the arbitration court considered a case that was not within its jurisdiction (resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of September 20, 2013 No. 05AP-9512/2013 in case No. A51-14220/2013).
Misapplication of legal norms
The following are recognized as incorrect application of substantive law (Part 2 of Article 270 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation):
- failure to apply the law to be applied;
- application of a law that is not subject to application;
- misinterpretation of the law.
Failure to apply proper law
The court may make a decision without being based on the legal norm that is applicable to the disputed legal relationship. This may be grounds for reversing the decision.
The court of first instance did not apply the rules of bankruptcy law to the relevant requirements. The contractor filed a lawsuit against the customer to collect the debt for the work performed. By the time the contractor filed a statement of claim, bankruptcy proceedings had already been introduced against the customer. The demand did not relate to current payments, so the court had to leave the application without consideration. However, he reviewed it and satisfied the claims. The appellate court overturned the decision of the trial court, indicating that these claims should have been considered in the bankruptcy case. The court did not have the right to resolve the dispute according to the rules of claim proceedings (resolution of the First Arbitration Court of October 1, 2013 in case No. A79-3924/2013).
Application of improper law
The court may make a mistake in choosing a legal norm and apply provisions that are not relevant to the case. Or he can apply the repealed law or articles in an ineffective version.
The creditor demanded to collect the debt from the company and its founder (the Russian Ministry of Defense) through subsidiary liability. The court satisfied the requirements - it collected the debt from the company, and if there were insufficient funds, from the founder. The Russian Ministry of Defense appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal indicated that, in collecting the debt in the manner of subsidiary liability, the court of first instance applied a law that was not subject to application - Article 399 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This rule establishes that if the debtor refuses to satisfy the claim, the creditor presents it to the person bearing subsidiary liability. But according to Article 56 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the founder of a legal entity is liable for its obligations only in cases provided for by law or charter. The plaintiff did not substantiate with reference to the law or the debtor’s charter that the founder is obliged to answer for the obligations. The law establishes that when the bankruptcy of a legal entity is caused by the founders, they can be held subsidiarily liable for obligations if the debtor’s property is insufficient. There is no evidence in the case materials that the debtor was declared bankrupt and this was caused by the actions of the founder, and the property was not enough. There were no grounds for applying Article 399 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and collecting debt from the Russian Ministry of Defense (resolution of the Seventh AAS dated 07/05/11 No. 07AP-4322/11 in case No. A45-2266/2011).
The law is misinterpreted
The rules of the law are not always formulated unambiguously and therefore judges sometimes “read” the law incorrectly. This may become a basis for overturning the court decision. (This basis also includes discrepancies between the court decision and the explanations of the Plenums of the RF Armed Forces or the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.)
The court incorrectly concluded that the provisions of the law on joint stock companies on the appointment of an auditor and determination of the amount of payment for his services apply only to cases of mandatory audit. The appeal indicated that they are valid for all cases of audits (resolution of the Second AAS dated May 29, 2008 in case No. A17-122-123/2008).
Administrative responsibility
Bringing to administrative liability is the main type of liability for violators who do not comply with judicial acts. However, it should be taken into account that the articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provide for sanctions for specific types of such violations and for certain categories of cases. This requires a more substantive consideration of each case of non-execution of a judicial act and the correct qualification of actions.
Examples:
- Article 17.14 – liability for violations within the framework of enforcement proceedings. The main sanction is a fine, the size of which varies from several thousand rubles (for citizens) to several tens of thousands of rubles (for officials).
- Article 17.15 – liability for failure to fulfill non-property requirements contained in the writ of execution. Penalties are almost similar to Art. 17.14.
- Article 5.35 is an example of a rule providing for liability for failure to comply with a court decision by a specific category of persons (parents) in specific cases (establishing a procedure for the exercise of parental rights, determining the child’s place of residence).
- Article 17.3 – liability for failure to comply with the requirements of the court and bailiffs regarding the rules of conduct in legal proceedings.
- Article 17.4. – failure to comply with a private ruling/representation of the court.
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).
