unsubstantiated. The court found in particular, that there was no evidence that the first applicant had taken paper and toner. The first applicant appealed against this judgment, but his appeal was not accepted for failure to comply with procedural formalities. L. did not appeal against the judgment in question.
9. The first
applicant further tried to have the judgment of 18 February
1999 reviewed under the new cassation procedure, in the light of new
circumstances and under the extraordinary review procedure, but to no
nos. 2-194/2000 Yevpatoriya
10. In August
payments, since the amount awarded to L. by the court decision of
18 February 1999 did not correspond to the current price of a photocopier,
which, according to L., was UAH 8,177.40. On 17 January 2000 the court
found against L. It held that in the judgment of 18 February 1999 the court
had found that the photocopier cost UAH 5,480. On 20 March 2000 the
Supreme Court of the ARC upheld the judgment of 17 January 2000.
B. Enforcement proceedings and related issues, nos. 2-428/1999 the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
11.As the first applicant did not honour the judgment of 18 February 1999, on an unidentified date the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
12.On 15 May 1999 the
State Auto-Transport Inspection informed the President
13.On 5 August 1999
14.On 10 August 1999 the
State Bailiffs' Service allegedly gave the petrol tanker to L., who sold it to
the joint-stock enterprise B. for UAH 19,250. UAH 9,161 were transferred to the
Bailiffs' Service's account and L. allegedly took the rest of the amount
15.On 6 September 1999 the
nos. 2-2633/2000 Yevpatoriya
16.The first applicant's wife, Y., a co-owner of the petrol tanker which had been sold, instituted court proceedings seeking to have it excluded from
the inventory of the seized property. On 13 September 1999 the Yevpatoriya Town Court found that Y. owned half of the petrol tanker and ordered the State Bailiffs' Service to pay her half of the sum received after the sale of the tanker. By an additional decision of 10 January 2000 the court stated that that amount was equivalent to UAH 4,351.84. On 10 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed these decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 13 November 2000 the Yevpatoriya Town Court decided to exclude the petrol tanker 7561 KPT from the list of seized property.
nos. 2-131/2000 Yevpatoriya17.The first applicant instituted several sets of proceedings in the
18.On 7 September 2000 the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against L. for unlawful sale of the petrol tanker. There is no further information about these proceedings.
19.On an unidentified date the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol against the Yevpatoriya Bailiffs' Service and the B. and K. trading companies seeking to have invalidated the sales agreement of the petrol tanker (7561 KPT). On 1 November 2001 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol found the sales agreement invalid. On 27 March 2002 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (former Supreme Court of the ARC) quashed this judgment and found the sales agreement valid. On 10 December 2007 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 27 March 2002 and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the court of appeal. On 5 March 2008 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld the decision of 1 November 2001.
20.On an unidentified date the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol against the traffic police, complaining about the cancellation of the State registration of the petrol tanker (7561 KPT). On 11 December 2000 the court found that the police officers had acted in compliance with the court decision of 5 August 1999. On 14 March 2001 the Supreme Court of the ARC upheld this judgment. On 10 October 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine returned the first applicant's appeal under the new cassation procedure for failure to pay a court fee. Between 2004 and 2006 the courts rejected the first applicant's requests for the proceedings to be reopened in the light of new circumstances.