Besides the fact that Judicial acts compulsory enforcement service has twice replied to the Ombudsman’s releases, no clear counterargument has been mentioned in the replies., reports the Ombudsman’s Office.
The fact is that in the framework of complaint consideration, along with other information, it was informed by the JACES that:
• On 25.06.2010 a decision was taken on closing the enforcement proceedings and on the same day the enforcement proceedings were reinitiated under number 01/04-1936/10. On 09.06.2011 attachment was imposed on the debtor’s property with total value of 400,000 AMD.
• By part 2 of the 6th article of RA Law “On Bankruptcy” and part 8 of the 37th article of RA Law “On JACES” decision was taken on 03.11.2011 on staying the enforcement proceedings for 60 days.
• On 09.01.2012 the enforcement proceedings were reinitiated and the property was presented to direct sale, but the debtor made an announcement to JACES that the attached property had been sold by his son. On the basis of the information provided by the enforcement body, examination of enforcement proceedings sent as a reply to the Defender’s request, and RA Law “On JACES”, we inform that:
• It is mentioned by number 254 notice of the head of administrative and analytical department of JACES, and by 03.11.2011 decision of compulsory enforcement officer on staying the enforcement proceedings, that it came out in the framework of 01/04-1936/10 enforcement proceedings that during enforcement actions attachment was imposed on the debtor’s property with total value of 400.000 AMD.
• The compulsory enforcement officer stayed the enforcement proceedings for 60 days without levying the property.
• And when the proceedings were reinitiated and decision on the direct sale of the property was taken, the mentioned property had already been stolen. It should be mentioned that it is prescribed by the law that the decision on direct sale of property should be taken during inventory taking, which was not done.
So it can be concluded that during the compulsory enforcement actions, realized in the framework of the mentioned case, the debtor’s property was attached, but the claimant had not been informed about the inventory taking.
It is worth mentioning that, without putting levy on the property, the compulsory enforcement officer found that there were enough bases for striking out the proceedings as a result of the debtor’s bankruptcy, and it was struck out for a two-month period. And when the proceedings reinitiated and decision was taken on direct sale of the property, it had been already stolen. It is worth mentioning that the decision on direct sale of the property should have been taken during the inventory taking.
The information spread by the JACES in mass media and clarifications and materials of enforcement proceedings provided to the Defender contradict each other. A situation is made up when the JACES has or has not taken inventory, notice, but has taken decision on direct sale of property that was stolen. We just want to add that we will keep clarifying the issue as long as it is needed to find out the truth.