Civil enforcement primarily protects the creditor's interest, as it often represents the only tool the creditor can use to achieve the enforcement of a claim that the debtor does not settle voluntarily. Enforcement of dematerialised securities, as means of enforcement of a pecuniary or non-pecuniary claim, was considered efficient, simple and economical when it was introduced. However, the lack of case law and the negligible number of proposed enforcements of dematerialised securities calls the above claims into question today. The subject of this paper is the presentation of the normative regulation, jurisprudence and practice of procedural subjects, and the analysis of the problems that arise in this form of enforcement.
Creditors can choose between two forms of enforcement of dematerialised securities, namely their redemption or delivery. The decision as to which instrument to choose depends on the pecuniary or non-pecuniary nature of the creditor's claim and the type of securities. An essential element that dictates the type of enforcement procedure is the inclusion of the debtor's dematerialised securities in stock exchange trading. Procedural subjects and enforcement actions performed in enforcement proceedings depend on this. In enforcement of dematerialised securities, there are many problems in practice, which mostly stem from unclear and under-regulated legislative arrangement, which is reflected in the non-uniform practice of enforcers in enforcement proceedings. Due to the lack of case law and inconsistency of regulations, procedural subjects enforcing an enforcement order often do not know how to proceed, which leads to arbitrary conduct and misapplication of the law, resulting in violations of the basic principles of enforcement proceedings.
|
