The purpose of this work is to provide a more detailed presentation of the differences and similarities concerning the sale of real estate in both enforcement proceedings, in enforcement proceeding as well as in insolvency proceeding.
Enforcement proceedings are a regular feature in all legal systems. It frequently occurs that debtors are not willing to fulfill their obligations voluntarily, therefore creditors must, in order to assert their acquired rights, initiate enforcement proceeding before the competent court. To protect their interests and receive the most comprehensive repayment as soon as possible, creditors often want their claim to be repaid from the sale of real estate. The latter usually presents debtor’s most valuable assets. Nevertheless, the law offers numerous safeguards, which, in the name of the principle of equality, debtor’s dignity and proportionality of the measure, protect debtor’s right to private property and home. This is introduced predominately with the fact that the debtor has the option to suggest the repayment being fulfilled with different enforcement means. As opposed to enforcement proceeding, the basis of insolvency proceeding is general enforcement, in which the entire debtor’s property, including his home, is sold. The debtor’s right to keep the real estate, in which he resides, does not exist in insolvency law.
Despite the many differences I mention in this master's thesis, the two procedures, on the other hand, have something in common, as in both cases one is dealing with enforcement. This stems from the fact that the provisions of insolvency law in some parts explicitly refer to the provisions arranged in enforcement proceeding. Both proceedings share the ultimate purpose (creditors to be repaid as quickly as possible and to the greatest extent possible). In my opinion the significant differences are seen especially in protection of the rights of debtors and individuals with a legal interest in the proceeding.