Понедельник, 23.09.2019, 02:29
Приветствую Вас Гость | RSS
Меню сайта
Форма входа
Поиск
Календарь
«  Сентябрь 2019  »
ПнВтСрЧтПтСбВс
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30
Архив записей
Наш опрос
Оцените мой сайт
Всего ответов: 27
Статистика

Онлайн всего: 1
Гостей: 1
Пользователей: 0

Благотворительный фонд "Ющенко Крым"

Продолжение

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
avail.

nos. 2-194/2000 Yevpatoriya

10.   In August 1999 L. instituted another set of proceedings in the
Yevpatoriya Town Court against the first applicant, claiming additional
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 of the Yevpatoriya Town Court, following his request, that certain petrol tankers (a MAZ-5334, registration number 7561 KPT and a MAZ 5334, registration number 1403 KPT) belonged to the first applicant.


13.On 5 August 1999 the Yevpatoriya Town Court ordered the seizure of one of the petrol tankers (7561 KPT). The court also entitled the K. trade enterprise to sell it. The first applicant stated that his appeal against the decision of 5 August 1999 had been returned to him by a court letter of 27 August 1999. The letter stated, without mentioning any dates, that "the court returned your appeal because there was no such decision as the one against which you appealed".


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 Yevpatoriya Town Court lifted the seizure of the first applicant's property and apartment and of the accounts of the applicant company. The first applicant states that the seizure of his apartment was only lifted in June 2001


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 Yevpatoriya

17.The first applicant instituted several sets of proceedings in the Yevpatoriya Town Court against the Bailiffs' Service, alleging improper enforcement of the judgment of 18 February 1999. On 17 March and 22 May 2000 the court found that when enforcing this judgment the State Bailiffs' Service had not acted in compliance with the procedure prescribed by law. On 30 August 2000 the Supreme Court of the ARC upheld the judgment of 22 May 2000. On 6 June 2000 the court found that the first applicant had not been present when the value of the petrol tankers was being assessed and had not had an opportunity to make a complaint. On 30 August 2000 the Supreme Court of the ARC upheld this judgment.

nos.52314/2000 Simferopol

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.

 nos. 2-3500/2001 Simferopol

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.

  nos. 2-1025/2000 Simferopol

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.