- the correction of misprints, calculation errors and the like in a court decision, as well as dropping out of a party to execution proceedings (the death of natural person or reorganization of a legal person) do not require the issuance of a new writ of execution; this is required only when a multitude of persons on the part of the debtor or recoveror arises (for example, as a result of succession, reorganization of a legal person, a partial assignment of a claim) – in such a case the court  may issue several writs of execution instead of the one issued before;

 

- the seizure of property by way of interlocutory injunction does not presuppose application by the judicial bailiff-executor of additional measures, not mentioned by the commercial court. If the court has seized a property, and the judicial bailiff-executor, thus making arbitrary restrictions of the rights of the defendant, has withdrawn and transferred it for safe custody, but the creditor’s suit secured by the seizure of property was subsequently dismissed, the debtor may recover at the expense of the Treasury the damages caused by the withdrawal of the property; 

 

- the impossibility of execution of a court decision is a lawful ground for termination of executive proceedings, but only if such impossibility exists objectively, that is, regardless of actions (or failure to act) of bailiffs-executors. Otherwise, when the impossibility of execution was provoked by bailiffs’ actions, for example, in case of unlawful release of the property which was subsequently alienated (sold, donated, etc) by the debtor, the impossibility may not be regarded as existing objectively, and the recoveror may bring a suit on compensation of damages at the expense of the Treasury;