In the modern world, non-enforcement of court decisions is not uncommon. It implies a complete refusal to carry out specific measures prescribed by the court as a punishment in order to restore justice. Typically, this solution is limited to a specific time frame. If the business entity does not have time or is unable to complete the task on time, he will receive a preliminary warning in the form of a written notification. Further neglect of judicial measures can be classified as a malicious offense.
Failure to comply with a court decision in business relations arises constantly. This is due to the imperfection of the legislative framework, because in no legal act there is a clearly described procedure regulating the process of voluntary fulfillment of obligations to the counterparty. That is why business entities resort to forced repayment of debt or the restoration of their own rights. To do this, they turn to the appropriate judicial authority, and then receive a writ of execution.
According to the general provisions, the debtor is responsible for non-enforcement of the court decision. At the same time, refusal of voluntary execution cannot be punished; additional proceedings and initiation of enforcement proceedings are required. And this procedure can be delayed for a sufficiently long time. That is why entrepreneurs do not want to contact the judiciary and try to resolve the problem on their own.
So, the failure to comply with the court decision is outside the legal norms, because there is no clear regulation. But the fact of failure to fulfill obligations in relation to a partner is punishable, which follows from certain articles of the Civil Code. The arbitral tribunal, considering the complaint of the injured party, can help to get out of the conflict situation by charging penalties in the amount prescribed by the relevant law. Thus, the state encourages the defendant to repay the debt, because he understands that in the future the consequences will only get worse. The full payment of the fine does not mean that the enforcement of the judgment may not be made.
Most often, judicial authorities examine complaints regarding mutual monetary obligations. Persons or organizations that dispose of other people's financial resources at their own discretion on the basis of a loan or credit agreement in case of untimely return of funds or payment of a debt are not fully liable. For example, when the debtor returned only the body of the loan, although by bilateral agreement he is obliged to return the specified percentage to the creditor. In addition, those borrowers who, in the process of using the funds, have caused any damage to the lender are punished.
Failure to comply with a court decision can lead to serious consequences. However, state authorities welcomed the mutual desire of the parties to resolve the problem without lengthy litigation. In this regard, at all stages of enforcement proceedings, a settlement is allowed. At present, the refusal to fulfill one’s own obligations does not scare the debtor, because he understands that for the enforcement of the court decision the injured party will have to spend a lot of time and effort. And not every business person decides on such a painful procedure.
The government should introduce measures to modernize and expedite the litigation system . First of all, it is necessary to eradicate the bureaucracy that forces people to wage a dishonest struggle. And, of course, more attention should be paid to the qualifications of bailiffs and other employees in this area.