Article 85 Federal Law 229 on enforcement proceedings. Document requirements

Article 85. Valuation of the debtor’s property

Law on enforcement proceedings the possibility of assessing the seized property by both the bailiff and the specialist hired by him has been preserved. In both the first and second cases, the bailiff makes a corresponding decision, which in mandatory sent to the parties to enforcement proceedings.

Article 64 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings (in contrast to the previous version) establishes that a specialist who meets the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation on appraisal activities, i.e. Only a professional appraiser.

The imperative rule on the possibility of engaging exclusively a professional appraiser to evaluate seized property automatically indicates the type of value of the valuation object that should be used in in this case. Professional appraisers are subject to the rules of Art. 7 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings on Valuation, according to which, if in the normative legal act, containing the requirement mandatory evaluation of any object of evaluation, not defined specific type the value of the valuation object is subject to determination market price of this object.

Part 1 of the commented article reads: “The assessment of the debtor’s property, which is subject to foreclosure, is carried out by the bailiff according to market prices, unless otherwise provided by law Russian Federation". Thus, it was preserved general rule, according to which, firstly, the assessment of the debtor’s property is carried out by a bailiff, and secondly, the assessment is made at market prices. The legislator remained in its previous position, according to which relations arising in connection with the assessment of seized property by a bailiff are not subject to the requirements of the Law on Valuation Activities * (72).

Current legislation provides for two various situations: 1) establishing the value of property and 2) determining market prices * (73). When determining the market price, the subject acts as open market and transactions made on it with identical (similar) property. In this case, predominantly the method of comparisons is used (in addition, the method of subsequent sales price, etc. can also be used).

Therefore, according to the Law on Enforcement Proceedings bailiff, who evaluates seized property without the involvement of a specialist appraiser, is not obliged to be guided by either the Law on Valuation Activities or valuation standards (but this does not mean that the bailiff does not have the right to use them in his work). Accordingly, the current practice remains: the bailiff, when assessing seized property, can be guided by the prices prevailing in the region similar products(for this purpose information published Federal service state statistics, trading houses, exchanges, as well as data contained in the monthly statistical bulletin "Indices of Prices and Tariffs", in various price magazines and in private newspaper advertisements). This position supported by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in information letter dated June 21, 2004 N 77 “Review of the practice of considering cases related to the execution by bailiffs of judicial acts of arbitration courts” * (74).

The Law on Enforcement Proceedings establishes that the bailiff is obliged, within one month from the date of discovery of the debtor’s property, to engage an appraiser to evaluate the property, if the debtor or claimant does not agree with the assessment of the property made by the bailiff, as well as in cases where the assessment is subject to real estate; securities not traded on an organized market valuable papers(except for investment units of open-ended and interval mutual investment funds); property rights (except accounts receivable, not sold at auction); precious metals and precious stones, products made from them, as well as scrap of such products; collectible banknotes in rubles and foreign currency; items of historical or artistic value. In practice, the valuation of precisely these types of property most often causes difficulties for bailiffs.

In addition to the above cases, according to the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the bailiff is obliged to involve an appraiser when any property, the value of which, according to a preliminary assessment, exceeds 30 thousand rubles, must be assessed. You should pay attention to the term “preliminary assessment”, which was not used in the Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 1997. Part 4 of the commented article contains a clarification: if the bailiff is obliged to engage an appraiser to evaluate a separate thing or property right, then the bailiff The bailiff in the act (inventory of property) indicates approximate cost thing or property right and makes a note about preliminary assessments.

The bailiff is also obliged to involve an appraiser to evaluate the property if the debtor or claimant does not agree with the assessment of the property made by the bailiff. A party to enforcement proceedings challenging the assessment of property made by a bailiff shall bear the costs of engaging an appraiser.

Part 4 of the commented article establishes: if the bailiff is obliged to involve an appraiser to evaluate a separate thing or property right, then the bailiff appoints a specialist from among those selected in in the prescribed manner appraisers. Thus, it is assumed that in each region where territorial FSSP authorities Russia*(75), a list of appraisers who have passed the appropriate selection must be compiled. This selection will have to be made territorial bodies FSSP of Russia in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Law "On placing orders for the supply of goods, performance of work, provision of services for government and municipal needs", legal acts of the Ministry of Justice of Russia and the FSSP of Russia.

According to Part 1 of Art. 9 of the Law on Valuation Activities, the basis for conducting an evaluation is an agreement for conducting an evaluation concluded by the customer with the appraiser or with legal entity, with whom the appraiser concluded employment contract. This agreement is a type of civil legal contract paid provision services (Chapter 39 of the Civil Code). Article 10 of the Law on Valuation Activities establishes mandatory requirements for an evaluation agreement.

Particularly noteworthy are the provisions of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings concerning the procedure for appealing the results of an assessment. The distribution of responsibility for incorrect valuation of seized property has changed. According to the rule enshrined in clause 3, part 4, art. 85 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, the parties to enforcement proceedings may directly appeal in court the value of the appraisal object indicated by the appraiser in the report.

If the assessment of the property was carried out by the bailiff independently (without the involvement of a specialist appraiser), then the parties to the enforcement proceedings have the right to challenge the assessment decision in court (Part 7 of the commented article). In addition, an innovation is the rule enshrined here, according to which the assessment of property made by a bailiff without the involvement of an appraiser can be appealed by the parties to enforcement proceedings in the manner established by law on enforcement proceedings (i.e. in the order of subordination).

The novelty is the rule contained in Part 5 of the commented article, which defines some features regarding the procedure for assessing a number of objects, due to the specifics of their turnover. The cost of securities traded on the organized securities market is established by the bailiff by requesting the price of securities from the organizer of trading on the securities market, in which the relevant securities are included in the list of securities admitted to trading, and the cost of investment shares of open and interval mutual investment funds - by requesting prices for investment units from management company the relevant investment fund.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the Law on Enforcement Proceedings fundamentally changes the role and significance of the assessment results, the degree of their influence on the final sale price of the debtor’s property. There is a mechanism for marking down property that was not sold within a month or at the first auction due to a lack of demand for it. Articles 87 and 92 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings establish a gradual reduction in price by 15 and 25% of the original price. Under these conditions, the assessment itself and its results will no longer be as decisive as under the previously applied procedure.

1. The assessment of the debtor's property, which is being foreclosed on, is carried out by the bailiff at market prices, unless otherwise established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

2. The bailiff is obliged, within one month from the date of discovery of the debtor’s property, to engage an appraiser to evaluate:

1) real estate;

2) securities not traded in organized trading (with the exception of investment units of open-end and interval mutual investment funds);

3) property rights(except for receivables not sold at auction);

4) precious metals And precious stones, products made from them, as well as scrap of such products, with the exception of precious metals held in accounts or deposits with banks or other credit institutions;

5) collectible banknotes in rubles and foreign currency;

6) items of historical or artistic value;

7) things the cost of which, according to preliminary estimates, exceeds thirty thousand rubles.

3. The bailiff is also obliged to involve an appraiser to evaluate the property if the debtor or claimant does not agree with the assessment of the property made by the bailiff. A party to enforcement proceedings challenging the assessment of property made by a bailiff shall bear the costs of engaging an appraiser.

4. If the bailiff is obliged to involve an appraiser to evaluate a separate thing or property right, then the bailiff:

1) in the act (inventory of property) indicates the approximate value of the thing or property right and makes a note about the preliminary nature of the assessment;

2) appoints a specialist from among the appraisers selected in the prescribed manner;

3) make a decision on the valuation of a thing or property right no later than three days from the date of receipt of the appraiser’s report. The value of the object of assessment, indicated by the appraiser in the report, is mandatory for the bailiff when making the said decision, but can be challenged in court by the parties to enforcement proceedings no later than ten days from the date of their notification of the assessment;

4) sends to the parties a copy of the appraiser’s conclusion based on the results of the assessment report no later than three days from the date of its receipt.

5. The cost of securities traded in organized trading is established by the bailiff by requesting the price of securities from the trade organizer, whose relevant securities are included in the list of securities admitted to trading, and the cost of investment shares of open-ended and interval mutual investment funds - by requesting prices for investment units from the management company of the relevant investment fund.

6. Copies of the bailiff’s decision on the assessment of property or property rights are not sent to the parties to enforcement proceedings later in the day, following the day of its issuance.

7. An assessment of property made by a bailiff without the involvement of an appraiser may be appealed by the parties to enforcement proceedings in accordance with this Federal Law or challenged in court no later than ten days from the date of their notification of the assessment.

8. If established by law Russian Federation on valuation activities, the validity period of the report on the valuation of the debtor’s property has expired, the bailiff is obliged within one month from the date of expiration specified period engage an appraiser for re-evaluation the debtor's property in the manner prescribed by this article.

A.N. KOMAROV

Article 85 “Responsibility for non-fulfillment executive document, obliging the debtor to perform certain actions or refrain from performing them” Federal Law dated July 21, 1997 No. 119-FZ “On Enforcement Proceedings” (as amended on December 27, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the Law) is applied in practice most often due to the fact that that it establishes a special composition of the executive offense, providing for the executive liability of the debtor for non-fulfillment judicial act. In this regard, the composition this offense competes with the composition established in Art. 81 " Performance fee» Law.

Executive liability of the debtor in case of non-fulfillment of the writ of execution non-property nature necessary to ensure execution specified documents, since in the event that the requirement of an executive document is irreplaceable, then bringing (or the possibility of bringing) the debtor to enforcement liability is the only means coercive influence(measure enforcement) to the debtor.

It should be noted that judicial practice also classifies the requirements of the executive document on the transfer of property as non-property requirements.

Clauses 1 and 2 of Art. 85 of the Law are formulated in such a way that from the literal interpretation of this article it is impossible to draw an unambiguous conclusion about who is the subject in this composition executive offense.

Subjects of an executive offense under Art. 85 of the Law can be recognized either only by the debtor, or by the debtor and his employees, who, by virtue of their official duties must execute the writ of execution, or the debtor, his employees and other persons who must execute the writ of execution.

The legal literature also lacks clarity on this issue. So, according to V.V. Yarkova, a fine can be imposed on any debtor: organization, executive, citizen.

In our opinion, the subject of an executive offense under Art. 85 of the Law is only the debtor, which is confirmed by judicial practice.

The objective side of an enforcement offense associated with non-execution of a non-property enforcement document is expressed in the failure to execute a non-property enforcement document within the time allotted for execution. Article 85 of the Law is closely related to the very procedure for forced execution of a non-property executive document, which is characterized by the establishment of a deadline for execution. The deadline is similar to the deadline voluntary execution, but has a number of differences. Thus, the deadlines established by the bailiff after the expiration of the period for voluntary execution are not the deadlines for voluntary execution.

The deadline for execution may initially be determined by the jurisdictional authority, in particular the court, but, as a rule, it is set by the bailiff.

The deadline for execution within the meaning of Art. 85 of the Law is only the period established by the bailiff. Thus, the debtor is subject to enforcement liability under Art. 85 of the Law only if he violated the deadline established by the bailiff.

Unlike the deadline for voluntary execution, which, as a rule, is assigned once, the deadline for execution can be set several times, and therefore, the debtor can be brought to enforcement liability under Art. 85 of the Law more than once (clause 2 of Article 85 of the Law).

Debtors attracted under Art. 85 of the Law to executive liability, reference to good reasons is used for the purpose of exemption from execution of an executive document of a non-property nature. The specified circumstance should be taken into account when considering cases challenging decisions of the bailiff to bring debtors to enforcement liability under the article in question.

Reference to good reasons is also used by debtors as a so-called substitute legal response, i.e., the debtor, instead of requesting a postponement (installment plan) of execution of the executive document or suspension of enforcement proceedings, appeals the bailiff’s decision to bring the debtor to enforcement liability under Art. 85 of the Law.

Of course, good reasons do not include the debtor’s failure to fulfill a non-property enforcement document due to the expiration of a 2-month period for execution executive actions.

The fact of non-fulfillment by the debtor of a non-property document of execution is confirmed by an act drawn up by the bailiff.

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 73 of the Law in case of failure to comply with the requirements provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, without good reasons The bailiff applies penalties and other measures to the debtor under Art. 85 of the Law, and appoints new term execution of the writ of execution. If the participation of the debtor is not necessary for the execution of the enforcement document, the bailiff organizes the execution in accordance with the rights granted to him by the Law and collects from the debtor the costs of carrying out enforcement actions in 3 times the amount.

The composition of the executive offense provided for in paragraph 3 of Art. 73 of the Law, is material, i.e. objective side This offense includes not only the debtor’s failure to fulfill a non-property enforcement document on time ( illegal behavior), but also enforcement costs (consequences of illegal behavior).

Taking this into account, the court must establish both the first condition and the second. Executive expenses must be economically justified and supported by relevant documents. If the bailiff does not confirm the economic justification of the costs, then a fine of 2 times the amount of enforcement costs cannot be recovered from the debtor. Similar consequences occur when the bailiff cannot prove the existence of the first condition.

Article 87 of the Law supplements Art. 85. And if the second is a measure of compulsory execution in enforcement proceedings, then the first, in essence, is not one and is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the bailiff.

Obviously, without coercion, the binding nature of the bailiff's demands would be in question. If there is liability, the demands of the bailiff are secured through state coercion.

In Art. 87 of the Law, the subject of liability is not specified clearly. In the legal literature, different opinions are expressed on this matter: for example, V.V. Yarkov writes that the hypothesis of Art. 87 of the Law is formulated in such a way that it gives grounds to hold accountable almost any person who has certain responsibilities in the field of enforcement proceedings. However, he points out that the subjects of liability under Art. 87 of the Law are citizens and officials.

Currently, the issue of possible prosecution of the debtor’s manager under Art. 87 of the Law in case of failure to comply not so much with the requirements of the bailiff, but with the requirements of the executive document. That is, the requirement of the bailiff is considered to be the requirement for the execution of an executive document, including a non-property one. Sometimes courts recognize legal prosecution under Art. 87 of the Law of the head of the debtor for failure to comply with an executive document.

We believe that a more correct opinion is that the debtor’s employee cannot be held liable under Art. 87 of the Law for failure to fulfill an executive document - in this case, the subject of enforcement liability is the debtor on the basis of Art. 81 or 85 of the Law.

The objective side of the offense under Art. 87 of the Law itself general view may be represented by indicating non-performance legal requirements bailiff. This may be expressed in various actions: for example, a person may prevent a bailiff from entering the premises or fail to provide the documents requested by the bailiff.

The objective side of the enforcement offense under the article in question is subject to recording in the act of the bailiff. Lack of an act drawn up properly, may serve as a basis for recognition illegal resolution on the collection of a fine under Art. 87 of the Law.

The bailiff's requirement must be specific (that is, it must indicate exactly what actions the person is required to perform), be legal and enforceable. This requirement has the property of mandatory.

If a person considers that the bailiff’s demand presented to him is illegal, he has the right to appeal such a demand in court. IN judicial practice There are cases of appealing the demands of bailiffs regarding the execution of enforcement proceedings by participants certain actions. Sometimes courts require the bailiff to indicate the deadline for fulfilling the requirement, in otherwise the decision to collect a fine is declared illegal.

Absence of guilt of the person held accountable for failure to comply mandatory requirements bailiff, entails the impossibility of bringing such a person to responsibility under Art. 87 of the Law.

The employer does not have the right to appeal the decision to impose a fine on his employee, since the decision to collect executive fine according to Art. 87 of the Law does not affect the rights of the employer (only the debtor’s employee himself has the right to appeal such a decision, if he is a person held liable under Article 87 of the Law). In practice, there are often cases of an employer appealing a decision to impose a fine on his employee, but the proceedings on such a complaint must be terminated.

For failure to comply with judicial acts, Art. 332 Arbitration procedural code The Russian Federation provides for administrative liability. This article corresponds to Art. 86 of the Law, establishing the amount of the executive fine, and Art. 85 of the Law. Essentially, in Art. 87 of the Law and in Part 2 of Art. 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establishes similar liability, however, in the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation the measure administrative responsibility called a judicial fine.

According to Part 3 of Art. 332 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation payment court fine does not relieve one from the obligation to execute a judicial act. Based on the content of this norm, we can conclude that administrative liability under Art. 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a person can be brought to trial more than once.

The issue of imposing a court fine is being considered arbitration court at the request of the claimant or bailiff in the manner established by the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The presence of guilt is a necessary condition to apply the liability provided for in Art. 332 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

For failure to comply with the requirements of the writ of execution for obligated person arbitration court that issued performance list, a court fine may be imposed in the manner and in the amount established in Chapter 11 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Part 2 Art. 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is similar to paragraph 1 of Art. 85 of the Law. The only difference is that the jurisdictional authority is not the bailiff, but the court.

As in the case of Art. 85 of the Law, subject to liability under Part 2 of Art. 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is only the debtor. However, there is also Opposite opinion, according to which liability under Part 2 of Art. 332 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation cannot be assigned to the debtor and is assigned to his employee. The bailiff is not subject to liability under this norm of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

The courts recognize that in case of untimely fulfillment of the requirements of the writ of execution, liability under Part 2 of Art. 322 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation cannot occur.

Practice adheres to the position that the debtor has the right to execute the writ of execution before considering the appeal (cassation) complaint, which is the basis for canceling the determination to impose a fine, despite the fact that at the time of consideration of the issue of imposing a fine, the writ of execution had not been executed. This approach cannot be considered justified because the debtor is interested in the untimely execution of the writ of execution and, knowing the position of the courts, avoids responsibility for untimely execution a judicial act by appealing a ruling to impose a court fine. With this approach, the value judicial liability The claimant's right to timely execution of the writ of execution is largely lost and is not properly implemented.

As a rule, courts are of the view that judicial determination refusal to impose a fine is not subject to appeal. Appeals, filed by the claimant or bailiff against such determinations, are subject to return. At the same time, in practice, there is a very widespread opinion that if the decision to impose a fine is canceled in appeal procedure, then the decision to cancel such a decision can be appealed by the collector or bailiff in court cassation instance. However, in many cases, courts have inconsistently prohibited appeals of such determinations. There are examples when superiors courts revise these definitions.

Bibliography

1 See, for example, the FAS resolution Volga-Vyatka district dated December 13, 2001 No. A43-161/01-13-64-15ISP.

2 See: Yarkov V.V. Commentary on the Federal Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” (article-by-article) and on the Federal Law “On Bailiffs”. - M., 1999. P. 333.

3 See, for example, the FAS resolution East Siberian District dated 07/05/2001 No. A19-269i/00-31-10-Ф02-1447/01-С2.

4 See, for example, resolutions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated November 21, 2005 No. A28-3055/2005-89/13 and dated March 5, 2002 No. A28-88/01-6/13I.

5 See: Yarkov V.V. Decree. slave. pp. 340-341.

6 See FAS resolutions Far Eastern District dated January 21, 2004 No. F03-A51/03-2/3396 and FAS of the West Siberian District dated January 13, 2003 No. F04/211-1565/A27-2002.

7 See, for example, resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District dated December 10, 2003 No. A33-1664/03-S6-F02-4253/03-S2.

8 See, for example, the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Far Eastern District dated December 10, 2003 No. Ф03-А51/03-2/3013.

1. The assessment of the debtor's property, which is being foreclosed on, is carried out by the bailiff at market prices, unless otherwise established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

2. The bailiff is obliged, within one month from the date of discovery of the debtor’s property, to engage an appraiser to evaluate:

1) real estate;

2) securities not traded in organized trading (with the exception of investment units of open-end and interval mutual investment funds);

3) property rights (except for accounts receivable that are not sold at auction);

4) precious metals and precious stones, products made from them, as well as scrap of such products, with the exception of precious metals held in accounts or deposits with banks or other credit institutions;

5) collectible banknotes in rubles and foreign currency;

6) items of historical or artistic value;

7) things the cost of which, according to preliminary estimates, exceeds thirty thousand rubles.

3. The bailiff is also obliged to involve an appraiser to evaluate the property if the debtor or claimant does not agree with the assessment of the property made by the bailiff. A party to enforcement proceedings challenging the assessment of property made by a bailiff shall bear the costs of engaging an appraiser.

4. If the bailiff is obliged to involve an appraiser to evaluate a separate thing or property right, then the bailiff:

1) in the act (inventory of property) indicates the approximate value of the thing or property right and makes a note about the preliminary nature of the assessment;

2) appoints a specialist from among the appraisers selected in the prescribed manner;

3) make a decision on the valuation of a thing or property right no later than three days from the date of receipt of the appraiser’s report. The value of the object of assessment, indicated by the appraiser in the report, is mandatory for the bailiff when making the said decision, but can be challenged in court by the parties to enforcement proceedings no later than ten days from the date of their notification of the assessment;

4) sends to the parties a copy of the appraiser’s conclusion based on the results of the assessment report no later than three days from the date of its receipt.

5. The cost of securities traded in organized trading is established by the bailiff by requesting the price of securities from the trade organizer, whose relevant securities are included in the list of securities admitted to trading, and the cost of investment shares of open-ended and interval mutual investment funds - by requesting prices for investment units from the management company of the relevant investment fund.

6. Copies of the bailiff’s decision on the assessment of property or property rights are sent to the parties to enforcement proceedings no later than the day following the day of its issuance.

7. The assessment of property made by a bailiff without the involvement of an appraiser may be appealed by the parties to enforcement proceedings in accordance with this Federal law or challenged in court no later than ten days from the date of their notification of the assessment.

8. If the validity period of the report on the assessment of the debtor’s property established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on valuation activities has expired, the bailiff is obliged to engage an appraiser within one month from the date of expiration of the specified period to re-evaluate the debtor’s property in the manner established by this article.

1. The assessment of the debtor's property, which is being foreclosed on, is carried out by the bailiff at market prices, unless otherwise established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

2. The bailiff is obliged, within one month from the date of discovery of the debtor’s property, to engage an appraiser to evaluate:

1) real estate;

2) securities not traded in organized trading (with the exception of investment units of open-end and interval mutual investment funds);

3) property rights (except for accounts receivable that are not sold at auction);

4) precious metals and precious stones, products made from them, as well as scrap of such products, with the exception of precious metals held in accounts or deposits with banks or other credit institutions;

5) collectible banknotes in rubles and foreign currency;

6) items of historical or artistic value;

7) things the cost of which, according to preliminary estimates, exceeds thirty thousand rubles.

3. The bailiff is also obliged to involve an appraiser to evaluate the property if the debtor or claimant does not agree with the assessment of the property made by the bailiff. A party to enforcement proceedings challenging the assessment of property made by a bailiff shall bear the costs of engaging an appraiser.

4. If the bailiff is obliged to involve an appraiser to evaluate a separate thing or property right, then the bailiff:

1) in the act (inventory of property) indicates the approximate value of the thing or property right and makes a note about the preliminary nature of the assessment;

2) appoints a specialist from among the appraisers selected in the prescribed manner;

3) make a decision on the valuation of a thing or property right no later than three days from the date of receipt of the appraiser’s report. The value of the object of assessment, indicated by the appraiser in the report, is mandatory for the bailiff when making the said decision, but can be challenged in court by the parties to enforcement proceedings no later than ten days from the date of their notification of the assessment;

4) sends to the parties a copy of the appraiser’s conclusion based on the results of the assessment report no later than three days from the date of its receipt.

5. The cost of securities traded in organized trading is established by the bailiff by requesting the price of securities from the trade organizer, whose relevant securities are included in the list of securities admitted to trading, and the cost of investment shares of open-ended and interval mutual investment funds - by requesting prices for investment units from the management company of the relevant investment fund.

6. Copies of the bailiff’s decision on the assessment of property or property rights are sent to the parties to enforcement proceedings no later than the day following the day of its issuance.

7. An assessment of property made by a bailiff without the involvement of an appraiser may be appealed by the parties to enforcement proceedings in accordance with this Federal Law or challenged in court no later than ten days from the date of their notification of the assessment.

8. If the validity period of the report on the assessment of the debtor’s property established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on valuation activities has expired, the bailiff is obliged to engage an appraiser within one month from the date of expiration of the specified period to re-evaluate the debtor’s property in the manner established by this article.