Suspension of enforcement activities in (civil) enforcement proceedings
The principle of enforcement proceedings is that the court bailiff does not examine the validity of the writ against which the creditor applied to him. Therefore, the demonstration by the debtor (his spouse) of circumstances that could justify the discontinuation or suspension of enforcement proceedings cannot be effective. When is the stay of enforcement actions applied?
Suspension of enforcement activities by the bailiff. What is going on?
Pursuant to Art. 822 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the bailiff will refrain from carrying out enforcement actions if, prior to its commencement, the debtor submits clear evidence in writing that he has complied with his obligation or that the creditor has delayed him (e.g. by signing a declaration of postponement).
The bailiff may also suspend the enforcement activities if, prior to its commencement, the debtor or his spouse raises an objection under the marriage contract against the performance of the activities and presents the marriage contract and submits undoubted written evidence that the conclusion of the marriage contract and its type were known to the creditor. By refraining from carrying out the enforcement activities, the bailiff, according to the circumstances, will take actions that enable the activities to be performed in the future. Of course, the bailiff will notify the creditor about the suspension.
The proceedings may also be suspended pursuant to a court decision pursuant to separate provisions, e.g. Art. 773 § 1, art. 852 § 2, art. 979 § 1, art. 988 § 2, art. 1028 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Is it possible to apply for the continuation of the proceedings despite the bailiff's decision?
Of course. The bailiff should immediately notify the creditor about the suspension of enforcement activities, because it is solely up to his decision whether the enforcement will be continued. If the creditor continues to support enforcement, the bailiff is obliged to perform the suspended enforcement action and take further steps to enforce the benefit.
What if the decision to withhold was right and the debtor was right?
The debtor can still defend himself against enforcement, but only by bringing an anti-enforcement action (Articles 840 and 8401). If, as a result of unjustified support for enforcement, the debtor has suffered damage, he may, on general terms, claim damages from the creditor.