The Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan has adopted a decision establishing a unified judicial practice regarding the possibility of providing an interpretation of the civil claim part of a verdict rendered within a criminal case, in order to eliminate uncertainties arising during its execution.
According to the report by elchi, based on the circumstances of the case, the first-instance court’s verdict ruled that the JSC must provide the victim with non-residential premises of the same size and fully renovated in the new building constructed at the same address, in exchange for the non-residential premises owned by the victim in the demolished building, and pay a monthly rent of 1,200 manats until the building is commissioned.
Subsequently, the victim applied to the court with a request for an interpretation of the part of the verdict concerning the civil claim. The application stated that since the verdict did not specify the exact location, orientation, and other characteristics of the non-residential premises to be handed over in the new building, this could lead to different approaches during the execution stage and failure to fully restore the victim’s rights.
The first-instance court did not grant the application, stating that the verdict was sufficiently clear, and the appellate instance upheld that decision.
The Supreme Court noted that although the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain a norm directly regulating the interpretation of court acts rendered in criminal cases, pursuant to Article 179.2 of the CCP, the relevant norms of the Code of Civil Procedure can be applied in such cases. The Court emphasized that Article 230.1 of the CCP grants the court that heard the case the authority to interpret a court act it has rendered and which has not been revoked, without changing its content. The purpose of this institution is not to change the decision, but to ensure its correct understanding and lawful execution.
According to the Supreme Court’s position, if uncertainty arises or is likely to arise during the execution of a decision rendered on a civil claim within a criminal case, the interpretation of that decision serves to ensure legal certainty and the effectiveness of judicial protection.
The Court specifically emphasized that compensation for damages in kind is not limited only to the equality of the property’s area. According to the meaning of Article 1115 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the victim’s previous legal status should be restored as much as possible. Therefore, the functional purpose, usability, and economic value of the property to be provided must also be taken into account. A contrary approach might lead to a formal execution of the court decision but would not ensure the real restoration of the victim’s violated rights. It was noted that the failure to specify these issues in the part of the verdict concerning the civil claim could lead to contradictory approaches during the execution stage and complicate the effective protection of property rights. In such cases, the interpretation of the decision is not a change in the content of the court act, but a legal mechanism aimed at ensuring its correct execution.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court reached the decision that the victim’s application for an interpretation of the part of the verdict concerning the civil claim is lawful and cannot be considered unfounded.