Obolon district court of Kyiv satisfied the claim filed by the senior state enforcement officer of State Executive Service Obolon District Department of Justice in Kyiv on temporary restriction of the debtor’ right to travel abroad, submitted by the representative of the claimant.
The client contacted the lawyer with the request to help to return money under the loan agreement in a significant amount. The decision of the Obolon district court of Kyiv satisfied the claims in a debt collection civil case in full. State Executive Service Obolon District Department of Justice in Kyiv initiated appropriate enforcement proceedings.
However, the Debtor deliberately deviated from voluntary fulfillment of his obligations and the court decision for over a year and a half. He did not perform his obligations under part 6 of article 12 of the law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The debtor did not pay the amount of debt within the period stipulated by law, opened new accounts despite the seizure of all movable property, did not appear when summoned by the state enforcement officer to provide information about his income and assets, did not reply to written messages of the state enforcenent officer regarding the property owned by other persons, and the financial assets and property belonging to the debtor from other persons. The debtor does not have any immovable property, on which execution can be levied.
According to article 313 of Civil Code of Ukraine, a natural person shall be entitled to freedom of movement. A natural person can be limited in exercising the right to movement only in cases stipulated by the law.
According to part 18 of article 11 of the law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, in case of the debtor’s deviating from fulfillment of the obligations set in the judgement, the state enforcement officer shall apply to the court to temporarily restrict the right of the debtor – natural person or legal entity to travel abroad until he fulfills his obligations according to the court decision.
The court, considering the circumstances of the case, having evaluated all the available evidence, came to the conclusion on intentional evasion of the Debtor from execution of the judgment and the need for temporary restriction of the Debtor’s right to leave Ukraine.