Creditors claim their receivables against their debtors on a daily basis before the competent courts and, in connection with them, conduct enforcement proceedings. A situation that often arises is when debtors, with their overdue condition, are no longer capable of repaying all of the receivables, and therefore declare personal bankruptcy. The beginning of debtor's insolvency and the introduction of bankruptcy proceedings affect the position of creditors of both procedures; those who claimed their recivables by enforcement as well as those who will only start to claim their recivables in the insolvency process. However, since the debtor of personal bankruptcy is a natural person and does not cease like a legal person (in bankruptcy proceedings over a legal person) by introducing the procedure, he can not therefore avoid taking on obligations in his everyday life. In addition, the costs of the insolvency process arise. How should creditors enforce their claims in the eventual enforcement, what should they pay attention to, and what options do they have to make repayment possible?
On the 26th of April 2016, the amendment G to the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Winding-up Act entered into force, which simplified the procedure in the conflict of personal bankruptcy and enforcement and unified certain provisions with the Claim Enforcement and Security Act. In addition to the positive changes in legislation, the author met with the realization that the coexistence of the institutes is not so self-evident when analyzing the relationship between personal bankruptcy and execution. With every amendment, the logic of the procedure, and thus the case-law, has changed quite well, therefore even the deep-rooted principles of recovery do not give even answers to this relationship, but moreover, they in general do not give much answers at all. The author thinks that this is a kind of sui generis piece of personal bankruptcy regulation, which needs to be judged carefully, according to the applicable legislation. Due to a fairly rigid legal theory, but several different views of legal experts, the author decided to compare the coexistence of the institutes with the legislation in force at the time of writing this master thesis.