VIETNAM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
Liên Đoàn Thương Mại Và Công Nghiệp Việt Nam
Hai Phong Technology & Products Joint Stock Company is a state-owned enterprise established in 1955 as a unit awarded with many certificates of appreciation, especially being granted by the President of the country "THE ANH HUNG UNIT "
According to the government's policy in 2005, the company was converted to equitization. In the second term (2010-2015), the wind came up at the company because there appeared a group of outsiders (Mr. Ngo Van The, Mrs. Le Thi Mai) to buy shares of the company. After a few days of appearing at the company, this group of people found every ways to rob the Company by removing the legal representative of Ms. Nguyen Thi Tuyet Len and appointing Ms. Dang Thi Hong Hai as a director of the company illegally. (Ms. Hai was not the shareholder of the Company). They repeatedly hired gangsters and veterans to rob the company, but it was unsuccessful, they changed the direction of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders of the company illegally that violated the procedural process of organization of the Congress, especially there was a fraudulent authorization of shares to attend the meeting) . 05 shareholders who represent shareholders of the Company wrote a petition to the court requesting the Court to cancel the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of the Company for the purpose of contravention of the law. Trial’s judgments were not objective, not based on evidence that both the plaintiff and the defendant submited, in particular, the Court was in violation of Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Code because in both judgments, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to reconcile and pledge to reorganize the General Assembly of Shareholders in accordance with the law guaranteeing the interests of all persons. The Court did not accept the mediation of the Plaintiff and the Respondent, finally, the court also stated: "The plaintiff's petition for cancellation of the Decision of the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders dated May 28, 2013 was not accepted."
In this case, the Company had a first instance judgment, a appellate case, the Cassation appeal of the Supreme People's Procuracy of Vietnam (the Appeal stated that Ms. Hai was not eligible as a shareholder and that the congress was organized with so many mistakes . Therefore we requested the Cassation to cancel the Appeal Judgment, First Instance and re-trial ...). On August 14, 2017, the Court of First Instance announced a confirmation of the first judgment with the trial that judgments were not being objective and ignoring all evidences provided by the Plaintiff and the Defendant and violated the Procedure Code.
The company continued to file a request for a retrial and the Company had documents at all levels requesting for reconsideration of the decision of the judge to deal with the law. (the written document of Ms. Nguyen Thi Binh, who was former Vice President, Ms. Le Thi Nga, who was Chairman of National Assembly Legislature Conference, and also National Assembly’s Member of 14th Session, the Central Committee of Internal Affairs and Hai Phong City..)
Pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code, upon the recommendation of the Chairman of the Judicial Committee of the National Assembly, the judgment must be reconsidered. On January 29, 2018, the Supreme People's Procuracy of Vietnam sent an Official Letter No. 434 / VKSTC-V10 to the Hai Phong Technology Joint Stock Companyfor the purpose of the Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code
The consequences of the above judgments is the illegal entry of the Department of civil enforcement of Hai Phong City. After the appellate and cassation judgments, the Department of Civil Judgment of Haiphong City issued consecutively the judgment execution’s decisions to our company that against the law.
Pursuant to the Law on Execution of Judgments, we present as follows:
For our Company's judgments, "the head of the civil judgment enforcement body shall only issue a judgment execution’s decision upon the request for judgment execution"
The name of the judgment execution decision is "the Decision on execution of the judgment according to the request application"
“ The judgment debtors shall based on the judgments or decisions which have the right to request the civil judgment-executing agencies to organize the judgment execution”.
“In this Law, the terms below are construed as follows:
Comparing with the litigants in the Company's judgment and Article 3 of the Law on enforcement, it is clear:
3.1 The person to whom the judgment is enforced is Nguyen Thi Tuyet Len, a legal representative of the company who is the respondent.
3.2 The person who has to execute the judgment shall be the person who loses the case shall be the five shareholders being the plaintiff.
So, the right to write the petition to the enforcement agency is Ms. Len (Respondent) and 05 shareholders (plaintiff), not be the group of people with rights and interests as Mr. Thien, Ms. Hai, Ms. Mai...
Pursuant to Article 34.that regarding a refusal of receiving written requests for judgment execution
1. Civil judgment enforcement agencies shall refuse to receive written requests for judgment execution in the following cases:
2. a) the judgment-requesting persons have no right to request judgment execution or the contents of the written requests for judgment execution are not related to the contents of the judgments or decisions;
3. b) The civil judgment - executing agency is requested to have no competence to execute the judgment;
So when the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hai Phong City receives the request for enforcement of the group Mr. Thang, Ms. Mai, Ms. Hai .... The Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hai Phong City must check whether the eligibility of this group of people is in the right to file an application for enforcement. If not, then the refusal to accept the application without having to pay attention to the content must be enforced in accordance with the application.
As a result, the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hai Phong City was wrong and violated rights from the reception of the application under the Law on Execution of Judgment (Item 1 of Article 34 of the Law on Execution of Judgments)
So, when issuing a Decision No. 373 / QD-CTHA dated June 23, 2014, the General Department issued a Decision No. 595 / QD-TCTHADS dated September 9, 2014 requesting the Department of Civil Judgment Execution of Hai Phong City must be withdrawn because: "First: ... the people with related rights and interests (that is Mr. Mai, Ms. Hai …) who are not the person to execute the judgment, persons who are subject to the authorization of the judgment debtors? Therefore, the Department of Civil Judgment Execution of Hai Phong City issued a Decision No. 373 / QD-CTHA- June 23, 2014 at the request of the above mentioned people that is not in accordance with the provisions of Clause 1 of Article 30, and Clause 1 Article 34 of the Law on enforcement of civil cases.
Second: ... The judgment did not require individuals, organizations must perform the property obligation or perform a specific task but only not accept the plaintiff's request to cancel the decision of the Congress. Therefore, there is no basis for the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Haiphong City to enforce a specific obligation. Thus, the complaint of Hai Phong Technology Joint Stock Company (by Ms. Nguyen Thi Tuyet Len - Director acting as legal representative of the company) is having basis."
On 12 May 2015, the Department of Civil Judgment Execution had to revoke this Decision.
We thought that the law on enforcement’s activities of the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement will be "drawn experience" and will terminate, but then the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Haiphong City colluded with a judge Tran Ngoc Viet as the chair of the trial. The decision of the Appeal Judgment No. 79 was not objective and violated procedural law with a new scenario. The judge Tran Ngoc Viet issued a document No. 209 – February 11, 2015 was contrary to the law, Mr. Viet self-directed, self-drew the contents that the judgments did not pronounce aimed that the the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement based on that continued issuing a decision to implement.the Civil Procedure No. 357/2015 / QD-CTHA dated 26 May 2015 with the content of "on the job training" for departments. The Document No. 209 of Vietnamese judge violated an Inter-circular No. 14 / TTLT-BTP- the Supreme People’s Procuracy and The Supreme People’s Court dated July 26, 2010.
After reviewing the documents, evidences and applications for urgent appeal of the Company. On September 9, 2015, the Central Committee of Internal Affairs has Document No. 2147 / CV-BNCTW dated September 9, 2015
The Central Committee of Internal Affairs responded to complaints from the Hai Phong Technology Joint Stock Company, in which include:
"- The Supreme People's Court shall study and withdraw the Official Dispatch No. 209/2015 / CV-TPT dated February 11, 2015 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People's Court;
- We would like to request the Ministry of Justice to direct the the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement to revoke the judgment execution’s decision No. 357 / QD-CTHA dated May 26, 2015.
- The Supreme People's Procuracy of Vietnam, the Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Justice need to have comments on improvement of the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Vietnam on their experience in judging and executing the cases mentioned above, avoiding becoming hot spots for mass suing".
Even if the verdict of the Judgment contains content for enforcement or the document No 209 of Vietnamese judge explaining the law correctly!? The Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement can not issue a decision on the execution of the judgment because the subject - the litigant has the right to write the petition for the execution of the judgment, including - The person who is executing the judgment (Ms. Nguyen Thi Tuyet Len - The defendant won the case) and the person who has to execute the judgment (5 shareholders of CTN CPC - Plaintiff is the loser) did not write the application, not The Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement enforces the judgments.
The decision on the civil judgment execution of the The Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement is still wrong as the same as Decision No. 373/2014 / QD-CTHA dated June 23, 2014 because the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement still issues a judgment based on applications of persons with related rights and obligations are those who have no rights to file a written request for enforcement.
We have repeatedly filed a complaint with the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement and the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hai Phong City, but received only a reply from the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement that we wait for the High Court to revoke the document No. 209? the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hai Phong City revoked the decision to execute the judgment in accordance with the request for judgments execution No. 357 / QD-CTHA-May 26, 2015? .
Obviously, there is a dishonest solution and not according to the Law on Enforcement, I suppose that even in the document No 209, pursuant to Article 3; 7; 30; 34; 36 of the Law on Enforcement People who have a right to write the petition to the enforcement agency do not write the application, not the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement intervene in the Company's internal affairs, the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement also has no authority to issue the judgment execution (both the Plaintiff and the Defendant wish to reconcile to resolve the work of the Company). which engines derive from that the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement relied on the unlawful petition of the non-petitioner to issue a decision on the enforcement of the petition and iIntentionally robbed our business and handed over our Company to Ms. Hai.
On January 5, 2018 the Hai Phong Technology Joint Stock Company also received the Notice of Receipt of Civil Judgment’s Resolution No 429 / TB-TCTHADS dated December 27, 2017 of the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement. So far the Company is still waiting for the response of the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement
Although we did not send the notice of coercion or posting at the Company's head office, on the morning of May 15, 2018, the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement organized the coercion of our company at the head office at 84-86 Dien Bien Phu Street- Haiphong City with style of slam baskets with nearly 100 people and the fence barriers causing panic for the people around the Company. There were some employees who came to the company also be prevented from their working. An adjustment execution officer pronounced "After 10 minutes, if the Company’s gate did not open, they would make a record and break the lock Company’s gate", we do not understand the execution of the automaticly breaking gate of the enterprise to enter for handing over the company to Ms. Hai of the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement that is included in the Law on enforcement??? And after that, there was a group of aggressive people coming to destroy the lock of the company's gate (there was a photo recorded), Is this means that the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement and Ms. Hai together with the gangsters to rob our company?.
Our company is on the verge of its life because the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement will use this minutes to force the Planning and Investment Development to make a new business registration, force the police to issue the new seal to rob our company.
By this Complaint letter and urgent appeals, we would like to request the General Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement to direct the competentagencies to take measures to prevent and stop legal violations of the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement that colluded with Ms. Dang Thi Hong Hai intentionaly appropriation of our company in many ways includinggetting gangsters involved. In order to avoid unfortunate cases and helps ensuring the social security for the employees in our Company and proper equitization work of the country.
