The master's thesis examines the institute of counter-execution as an extraordinary procedural remedy of a restitutionary nature in execution proceedings. The execution procedure is necessary for the exercise of the right to judicial protection, which enables the creditor to obtain the fulfilment of the right or obligation to which he is generally entitled under a legally binding court decision. At the same time, protecting the debtor, as the weaker party in the execution procedure, is also crucial, as it ensures their safety and security. Thus, the Execution and Security Act (ZIZ) in Chapter six provides for the institution of counter-execution, through which the debtor can request the return of what was unjustly taken from him in execution. It is an essential procedural means, as it allows the debtor to regain what was taken from him within the framework of the execution procedure. Counter-execution enables the debtor to avoid filing a lawsuit in court and thus save time and lawsuit costs. It is important to emphasise that the debtor still has the option of initiating civil proceedings if he misses the deadline within which he can propose counter-execution. The debtor can request a counter-execution for specific reasons only, which are listed in the first paragraph of Article 67 of the ZIZ. The court first decides on the motion for counter-execution, determining whether all conditions from ZIZ have been met. If the court grants the motion for counter-execution, the creditor (new debtor) must return the proceeds received in execution to the debtor (new creditor) within fifteen days; otherwise, the latter may initiate execution proceedings. An appeal is available against a decision on counter-execution, which a higher court decides. A final decision can also be subject to revision and reopening of proceedings, as well as a request for protection of legality.
|
