CrimeaPRESS reports:
The GUFSSP of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol notes: the facility was erected without the appropriate permits and in violation of building codes:
The Government of Sevastopol responded to these violations by filing a lawsuit against citizen O. Subsequently, according to the court decision, citizen O. was ordered to completely dismantle and demolish the object. However, the debtor was in no hurry to comply with the court’s decisions and meet with the representatives of the creditor. In this connection, on the basis of the writs of execution received for compulsory execution, enforcement proceedings were initiated against citizen O. in the department of bailiffs in the Gagarinsky district of Sevastopol of the Main Directorate of the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. In turn, the debtor also decided to ignore the legal demands of enforcement officers.
For untimely execution of the court decision, the bailiffs of the department issued a decision against citizen O. to collect an enforcement fee in the amount of five thousand rubles. However, even then the debtor did not express a desire to demolish the unauthorized multi-story building. As a result, employees of the bailiff department for the Gagarinsky district of Sevastopol of the Main Directorate of the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia for the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol repeatedly brought the debtor to administrative responsibility for failure to comply with the non-property requirements contained in the executive document under Art. 17 15 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. According to the court decisions, she was given fines, which she accumulated for a total amount of about 20 thousand rubles. Subsequently, citizen O. did not come up with anything better than to start hiding from the fulfillment of her debt obligations and the attention of enforcement officers.
Having taken note of the debtor’s behavior, the department’s bailiffs suggested that the claimant exercise the right to independently fulfill the requirements of a non-property writ of execution. The claimant exercised this right by resorting to the services of a third party — one of the city’s construction companies. After which, under the control of the department’s bailiffs, the construction company began dismantling and demolishing the facility. The funds spent by representatives of the claimant to pay for the services of demolition specialists and equipment will be recovered from citizen O. at the expense of the latter’s property and funds.
Crimea news | CrimeaPRESS: latest news and main events
Comments are closed.