The effectiveness of enforcement proceedings is currently quite low due to a number of reasons, one of which is the incorrect actions or inaction of bailiffs. Often, the claimant has no choice but to go to court again, only now with a claim not against the debtor, but against the one who should protect the rights of the creditor - the FSSP. What does judicial practice say and what mistakes do creditors often make?

It is worth noting that the practice of collecting from the FSSP is rarely in favor of the creditor. According to experts from the company "Sudokhod", this happens due to the following reasons:

1. Abuse of the right to sue
Thus, in case A40-80796/2011, the plaintiff filed a claim against the FSSP for damages resulting from a contractual penalty, provided that the plaintiff knew that the property (subject of the contract) was under arrest.

2. Unverified position of the creditor (plaintiff)
First of all, this should include the wrong way of protecting the right, for example, filing a claim not against the FSSP, but against the bailiff, failure to provide evidence that fully confirms the arguments. Thus, the plaintiff in case A50-13947/2017 did not provide evidence that the equipment specified in the claim was delivered under the concluded supply agreement.
3. Lack of uniformity in judicial practice
By virtue of the position of the Supreme Court (A40-119490/2015), the claimant must exhaust all legal remedies before applying to the court against the FSSP, while the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court (Determination of the Supreme Court of January 24, 2017 No. 53-KG16-30) took a different position, indicating that the continuation of enforcement proceedings in itself does not prevent compensation for damages caused to the claimant by the inaction of the FSSP employees.
4. Failure of the courts to take interim measures
This position is one of the key ones, since failure to take interim measures may make it impossible or difficult to enforce the judicial act. That is why they are allowed at any stage of the process.

But the standard of proof for their imposition is quite high and often unclear. Cases are quite common in judicial practice when, under identical conditions, different courts make polar decisions, despite the fact that, of course, there are indeed many more decisions to refuse to apply enforcement measures.

Thus, to prepare a complaint in court or out of court, it is necessary to be "in the material" and carefully select both the arguments and the evidence base. The lawyers of the company "Sudohod" know in detail all aspects of working with the FSSP bodies and will be happy to assist clients in working with them.

The company "Sudohod" knows all the features and can always provide support in terms of familiarization with the materials - https://sudohod.info/familiarization/