The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan has adopted a decision determining the uniformity of judicial practice regarding the inadmissibility of reconsideration of the same claim in court when there is already a legally binding and partially enforced court decision.
Medianews.az reports that a court decision was made to seize 17,500 manats in material damages and 4,000 manats in moral damages, totaling 21,500 manats from the person affected by a road traffic accident, and this decision was partially executed, but 20,250 manats remained unpaid. Later, both the debtor and the injured party passed away, and their legal heirs appeared. The legal heir of the injured party demanded the unpaid amount from the legal heirs of the debtor, but due to incomplete formalization of inheritance issues at the enforcement stage, the enforcement agency decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings.
Afterwards, the legal heir of the injured party filed a new claim in court demanding the seizure of the unpaid 20,250 manats. The courts reconsidered the case on its merits and granted the claim.
When reviewing the case, the Supreme Court primarily emphasized that although the right to apply to court is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, this right is not absolute and can only be exercised within the procedural rules established by law. The court specifically noted that the right to judicial protection is not only the formal possibility to apply to court but also includes ensuring the enforcement of legally binding court acts and preventing the repeated contestation of those acts.
The decision also highlights that in cases where the debtor or the claimant dies during the enforcement stage, involving their legal heirs in the enforcement proceedings is a direct requirement of Article 31 of the Law "On Enforcement." The court stated that the absence of a certificate of inheritance does not exempt one from liability if the inheritance has been factually accepted, and possession and use of the inheritance property constitute a primary legal indicator confirming acceptance of inheritance. Therefore, substituting parties who cease to exist in enforcement proceedings is the duty of the enforcement officer, and initiating new court proceedings without using this mechanism contradicts the legislation.
The Supreme Court also specially noted that the filing of a new claim on the same demand while there is already a legally binding and partially executed court decision is inadmissible under civil procedural legislation and constitutes a clear violation of procedural law norms. The court explained that in such cases, the problem should be resolved not through new judicial proceedings but within the enforcement mechanism, including proper application of legal inheritance.
As a result, the Supreme Court annulled the ruling of the appellate court and adopted a new decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings concerning the case.