Funds not subject to judicial or administrative enforcement received from the state


Due to the coronavirus epidemic, taxpayers obtained additional funds from the state for purposes related to their business activities. The legislator did not regulate whether the funds obtained under anti-crisis shields or from other institutions are subject to judicial or administrative enforcement, therefore bailiffs could subject them to the above-mentioned executions. Let's see what are the possible measures that are not amenable to judicial or administrative enforcement?

What is judicial enforcement?

It is in vain to find a definition of judicial enforcement in the Code of Civil Procedure. There are no obstacles to refer the enforcement matter in its definition to the enforcement proceedings. The enforcement proceedings are regulated in Part III of the Code - this is the action of the parties and enforcement bodies aimed at satisfying creditors. Regardless of the debtor's wishes, they are to force the benefits specified in the writ of execution from the debtor's property by compulsion.

Enforcement cases fall within the competence of district courts and bailiffs operating at these courts, and enforcement activities are performed by court bailiffs (except for actions reserved for courts).

What is administrative enforcement?

Administrative enforcement is a series of actions taken by law enforcement authorities against responsible persons and other participants in disputes, and its purpose is the final implementation of substantive laws and regulations. Such activities include procedural behavior that solves procedural problems that arise during a trial, and compulsory behavior, which is actual behavior.

Measures not subject to judicial or administrative enforcement

As part of Shield 4.0, the legislator regulated that funds received from the state are not subject to judicial or administrative enforcement. This applies to funds received, inter alia, from as part of:

  • non-returnable loan from the Labor Fund to cover the running costs of running a microenterprise;

  • co-financing the salaries of employees, people employed under a tolling contract or contract of mandate or another contract for the provision of services;

  • subsidizing the costs of running a business by the self-employed;

  • subsidizing the salaries of people employed by non-governmental organizations and other entities conducting public benefit activities;

  • co-financing from FGŚP funds for the remuneration of employees not covered by downtime, economic downtime or reduced working time as a result of COVID-19.

Moreover, these funds, when transferred to a payment account, are free from seizure on the basis of a court or administrative writ of execution. Exception - enforcement is carried out for the benefit of persons to whom the remuneration and social security contributions due from these remuneration have been transferred. Pursuant to Art. 98 of the Act on subsidies to the interest rate of bank loans granted to entrepreneurs affected by the effects of COVID-19 and on simplified proceedings for approval of an arrangement in connection with the occurrence of COVID-19, if, before the date of entry into force of this Act, funds were seized in the course of enforcement due to subsidies paid to entrepreneurs, o referred to above, further enforcement of these funds is unacceptable, and the seized and undistributed sums are returned.