Liability for failure to comply with a court decision by an individual

Execution and non-execution of a court decision

Justices of the peace, courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts make a wide variety of decisions. Collectively they are called judicial acts, and depending on the procedural nature they are divided into decisions, resolutions, determinations, court orders, writs of execution. Regardless of the type of judicial act, it is subject to mandatory execution by those persons whom it concerns, and in some cases by an unlimited number of persons.

In accordance with the established procedure, the execution of a judicial act may require:

1. Immediate execution, that is, immediately and in full. Here we are talking about decisions that come into force immediately after they are made (published). It must be said that in practice, immediate execution is an extremely rare occurrence, since the category of “reasonable time for execution of a court decision” is almost always applied - sufficient to familiarize yourself with the decision and take measures for execution. The criterion is evaluative, so different authorities may look at its compliance in different ways.
2. Execution in accordance with the procedure established by decision or law. This is a more flexible approach to the execution of court decisions. Firstly, it is not necessary to implement the decision until it has entered into force, and the deadlines vary. An appeal extends the effective date. Secondly, such decisions, as a rule, always have a deadline for voluntary execution - it is set by the court and (or) provided by the bailiffs.

Failure to comply with a court decision is a serious violation . Non-execution means both complete and partial failure to comply with a judicial act. In this case, it is considered that the person is openly sabotaging the obligation or does not want and cannot fulfill the decision. Prosecution for such a violation is not related to the compulsory nature of the execution of a judicial act. Whether it will happen or not is another aspect, but the person who has not executed the court decision is already subject to liability.

Failure to comply with a judicial act will not be considered a violation if the authorized body makes a decision to postpone or installment of the execution of its orders. But it will be a violation if a person fulfilled the court decision not as it was necessary, not in full, without observing the established procedure and deadlines.

Subjective signs

Criminal coercive measures for the illegal actions in question involve punishment for failure to comply with the verdict through actions of a more serious nature. Accordingly, to implement the sanctions of Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish the corpus delicti, which will require a comprehensive investigation of the act.

The composition of the act must include mandatory subjective and objective characteristics. The absence of one element will make it impossible to hold a person accountable for his actions.

The first group of such signs is objective in nature. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish the object of the crime and the events. The explanation of the above article reflects that the object is social relations related to the administration of justice. The subject is the decision of the presiding judge in the trial.

The objective side will be characterized by how the crime manifests itself in the external environment, and what means are implemented to achieve a criminal result.

The following can be included here:

• active actions involving attempts to avoid or contribute to the evasion of other persons to fulfill those requirements that are sent by the bailiffs for the execution of a judicial act;
• passive actions, on the contrary, exclude the commission of any actions, which affects the absence of the result of a judicial verdict.

The ability to hold a person accountable will not change if the person does nothing or, on the contrary, actively violates the law so that the requirement is not fulfilled. Passive and active actions are equally taken into account when establishing the objective side of the issue.

The nature of the action of the guilty subject will not differ when compared with those options offered by an administrative offense. However, to differentiate between these types of liability, it is sufficient to establish the fact of malicious evasion. This concept assumes that a person consciously, having all the resources to execute a decision of a judicial body, refuses to do so, ignoring all attempts by authorized entities to influence such an act.

The onset of negative consequences, as in the material form of the act, is not required.

Another mandatory category of elements that are necessary to establish a crime and obtain grounds for bringing a person to justice is a subjective group of characteristics, based on the characteristics not of the act itself, but of the person committing it.

The first thing that should be identified is the subject, that is, the person committing the criminal offense. Under the article under consideration, general signs of such apply.

To correctly determine the culprit of a crime, the legislator requires that law enforcement officers establish whether the person meets the following criteria:

1. Age. According to this article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the general age indicator applies, namely sixteen years. Persons under the specified age are not held accountable.
2. Sanity. Any crime requires only full awareness by the person of what is being committed, otherwise limited or complete insanity will be determined, which does not allow the use of any other measures besides medical ones.

The second aspect is the subjective side, expressed in the guilt of the person, that is, the psychological and mental state of that person.

There are two possible forms of guilt:

• intent, which involves full awareness of what is happening, anticipation of a negative result and the desire for such a result, regardless of whether the damage is major or not;
• negligence that does not imply an intention to achieve criminal consequences, but allows this to happen due to the negligence or frivolity of the culprit.

The existence of two forms of guilt at once is permissible only in specifically established articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

For a crime under Art. 315 in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, only the direct intent of the criminal is valid, since malice does not imply a careless attitude towards the act and the consequences. Moreover, such an option cannot be considered as indirect intent, since it does not require that the person has an established desire to achieve a criminal result.

It should also be said about the optional elements of the subjective side, the establishment of which is not a mandatory condition, but can simplify the work of law enforcement officers when bringing charges. We are talking about such aspects as the motivation of the subject and goals. Here it is important to understand that a person must want the court decision not to be implemented, regardless of the means by which this is achieved.

It should be noted that in terms of subjective characteristics there are also signs similar to an administrative offense. The only difference is that an organization can also be a subject under the Code of Administrative Offences, which is indicated by a separate article of the code.

Liability for violation

Liability for failure to comply with a court decision is provided for in various codes, laws and individual regulations.
The main ones are procedural codes (Civil Procedure Code, APC, Criminal Procedure Code, CAS, Code of Administrative Offences), the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, as well as laws establishing sanctions - the Criminal Code, Code of Administrative Offenses, and the Code of Administrative Procedures. Punishments range widely, from warnings and fines to disqualification and imprisonment. Prosecution does not exempt from execution of a court decision. The main bodies monitoring the execution of court decisions are the FSSP (bailiffs), the FSIN (criminal cases) and the prosecutor's office (in terms of decisions made on applications from the prosecutor's office, on cases and decisions of a public nature and some others).

Second commentary to Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. Failure by the perpetrator to comply with the procedural acts specified in the law represents, as a rule, the inaction of an official to implement a court decision. However, it can also be accomplished through action. By inaction, the official does not comply with the requirements of the procedural act: he does not dismiss from office or does not cease activities, the replacement and occupation of which the convicted person is prohibited by a court verdict for a certain period, leaves without movement the writ of execution for the collection of sums of money from his subordinate, for the return of property, the amount of a fine. , does not allow an employee reinstated by the court to work.

2. In the second case, the official commits actions that violate the prohibitions contained in procedural acts: despite the court depriving the right to hold positions in the civil service, in local government bodies or to engage in certain professional or other activities, he accepts the convicted person to work for such a position or to carry out such activities.

3. Obstruction of the execution of a court verdict, court decision or other judicial act is manifested only in actions aimed at preventing the execution of court decisions, for example, renaming a position that a person cannot fill by a court verdict, while maintaining the same functional responsibilities of the employee.

4. Maliciousness is manifested either in prolonged failure to comply with a sentence, decision or other judicial act, or in the commission of these actions, despite repeated demands from the relevant authorities.

5. The subjective side is characterized by direct intent.

6. The subject of the crime is a representative of the government, a civil servant, a municipal employee, an employee of a state or municipal institution, an employee of a commercial or other organization.

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.

Bindingness of court decisions for legal entities

Any court decision (decree, ruling) is binding for everyone - both for the participants in the process who are directly affected by it, and for other citizens and organizations that may have to face this decision.

As a rule, court decisions that must be executed by legal entities are made in the framework of civil proceedings or arbitration. At the same time, the “lion’s share” of judicial acts not executed by organizations are final decisions that directly affect legal entities that are defendants or third parties in the process. Such judicial acts can be decisions, court rulings, court orders, as well as writs of execution issued by courts, including decisions of arbitration courts.

Execution of a judicial act is its complete, correct and timely execution. Anything that does not meet these criteria is considered a failure. For example, it is impossible to comply with court orders only in some desirable part, and ignore the rest. Will result in punishment and missing the deadline. Under certain circumstances, liability of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the Arbitration Procedure Code or the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may arise in case of violation of the procedure for the execution of a judicial act, as well as in the creation of obstacles to its execution.

Criminal liability

It is provided for in Art. 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The following are held accountable:

1. for malicious failure to comply with a judicial act or opposition to execution;
2. officials, employees, employees of organizations, government representatives (ordinary citizens - no).

The sanction provides for a fine (up to 200 thousand rubles or in the amount of income for a period of up to one and a half years), disqualification for official duties, compulsory, forced labor, arrest, and imprisonment for up to 2 years.

The malicious nature of the violation presupposes its repeated occurrence in the presence of appropriate warnings, or cynical disregard of the obligation, or serious consequences of failure to comply with a judicial act.

Features of the objective part

The crime provided for in Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is expressed in malicious failure to comply with or creation of obstacles to the execution of a judicial act. We are talking, in particular, about:

• Committing actions that contradict the regulations reflected in the resolution.
• Refusal to perform established actions, i.e. inaction.
• Repeated refusal to comply with instructions after a warning has been issued.

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.

Key terms

To trigger liability under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to establish the presence of intent in the actions/inaction of the perpetrator.

The reasons for non-compliance with instructions may be objective factors, misunderstanding of the contents of the act, etc. In all cases, it is necessary to find out the circumstances under which the violation was committed. Depending on this, measures should be taken.

Another mandatory element of the offense provided for in Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is maliciousness. This is an evaluative characteristic. The legislation does not define the concept of malice. It appears that it is associated with gross violations of existing norms, which led to the non-execution of a judicial act.

Specifics of bringing to responsibility

In some cases, achieving execution of a court order can be more difficult than winning the case.

The investigation into the circumstances of the crime is carried out according to the rules of Article 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To bring the perpetrator to justice, you must submit a statement addressed to the head of the FSSP. It should indicate information about the employee who failed to comply with the judicial act, as well as describe the nature of the inaction/action that resulted in a violation of the law.

In addition, the injured participant in the process has the right to demand compensation for the violated right to execute a court decision within a reasonable time. The corresponding application is sent to a court of general jurisdiction or arbitration. The deadline for submitting the document is six months from the date of entry into force of the act. An application can be sent by any interested person, not just a direct participant in the process.

It is worth saying that the award of compensation does not exempt the guilty citizen from criminal punishment and does not exclude the possibility of filing a claim for compensation for material or moral damage resulting from failure to comply with a court order. The plaintiff determines the amount of compensation independently. In this case, one should proceed from the principles of reasonableness. Compensation must be commensurate with the nature of the violation. If there are grounds, the court has the right to reduce the amount of compensation.