The above legal position is set out in the resolutions of the Supreme Court of The mere existence March 3! 2020 in case No. 260/801/19! September 10! 2020 in case No. 120/1417/20-a! October 28! 2020 in case No. 640/13697/19! and April 16! 2020 in case No. 640/8425/19.
The main remuneration of a private executor and the enforcement
Fee in enforcement proceedings carried out by a state phone number lead executor! although they are forms of remuneration for executors! are not the same concepts. According to the provisions of Article 45 of Law No. 1404-VIII! only the procedure for collection is common to these forms of remuneration. As for the grounds for The mere existence the emergence of the right of a private executor to the main remuneration and the amount of this remuneration! such issues are regulated by separate legal norms.
A similar legal position is set out in the the best interests of the child: a lawyer’s perspective on determining the child’s place of residence resolutions of the Supreme Court of January 29! 2021 in case No. 640/13434/19! August 26! 2021 in case No. 380/6503/20! and October 26! 2023 in case No. 640/20265/19.
In addition! the analysis of Article 31 of Law No. 1403-VIII indicates that simultaneously with the initiation of enforcement proceedings! the private enforcement agent must resolve the issue of collecting the main remuneration and the adoption of a resolution on the collection of the main remuneration together with the resolution on the initiation of enforcement proceedings is the obligation of the private enforcement agent.
The relevant legal position was expressed
The Supreme Court in its resolutions of January 21! April 27! June 3! and August 26! 2021 in cases No.
IMPORTANT: At the same time! ! issued simultaneously with the awb directory resolution to initiate enforcement proceedings! does not mean unconditional and guaranteed collection of this remuneration and does not give the private enforcement agent the right to collect the amount determined by him without taking actual actions to enforce the court decision (paragraph 52 of the Supreme Court resolution of May 26! 2022 in case No. 420/6845/18).