Ustavna procesna jamstva v civilnem izvršilnem postopku

Lipovec, Kristina (author), Galič, Aleš (mentor)

Civilni izvršilni postopek je neločljiv del ustavne in konvencijske pravice do sodnega varstva ter je že po naravi stvari naravnan v korist upnika. Ker upnik že razpolaga z izvršilnim naslovom, je razumljivo, da tudi načeli sorazmernosti in enakosti v izvršilnem postopku nista tako pomembni kot v civilnem materialnem pravu ali pravdnem postopku. Glede na prakso Ustavnega sodišča in ESČP ter teorijo tako načeloma velja, da je v upnikovo pravico do učinkovite izvršbe dopustno poseči le v izjemnih primerih oziroma ko bi zaradi izvršbe prišlo do posega v dolžnikove osnovne pravice do osebnega dostojanstva in eksistence. Slovenski zakonodajalec vse od sprejetja Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ) leta 1998 dalje zasleduje cilj povečanja učinkovitosti in hitrosti izvršilnega postopka. Upoštevaje navedena izhodišča je to prizadevanje povsem legitimno, potrebno in primerno za zagotovitev upnikove ustavne in konvencijske pravice do učinkovitega sodnega varstva. Vprašanje pa je, ali veljavna ureditev v ZIZ v zadostni meri upošteva tudi ustavna (procesna) jamstva dolžnika in drugih udeležencev civilnega izvršilnega postopka. Pri tem je treba upoštevati tudi, da slovensko izvršilno pravo poleg izvršbe na podlagi izvršilnega naslova pozna še izvršbo na podlagi verodostojne listine, za katero pa ugotovitve o privilegiranem položaju upnika ne veljajo. Pri tej vrsti izvršbe namreč upnikov položaj v izhodišču ni bistveno močnejši od dolžnikovega, saj njegova terjatev v predhodnem kognicijskem postopku še ni bila avtoritativno ugotovljena. V nalogi sem obravnavala zakonske institute, ki so odraz ustavne pravice do sodnega varstva, pravice do izjave v postopku in pravice do pritožbe. Ugotavljala sem, ali so relevantne zakonske določbe ustrezne z vidika razmerja med pravnim položajem upnika in pravnim položajem dolžnika oziroma drugih udeležencev izvršilnega postopka. Zanimalo me je torej, ali je teza, da pozitivna ureditev slovenskega izvršilnega prava nesorazmerno posega v ustavna (procesna) jamstva dolžnika in tretjega na račun upnikove pravice do učinkovite izvršbe, pravilna. V ta namen sem analizirala sodno prakso in teorijo ter preučila ureditev v predstavljenem primerjalnem pravu. Raziskava je potrdila, da zakonska ureditev res ni optimalna z vidika ustavnih (procesnih) jamstev dolžnika in tretjega. To velja za odlog izvršbe na predlog dolžnika, ugovor tretjega v povezavi z odlogom na predlog tretjega, ugovor dolžnika zoper sklep o izvršbi na podlagi verodostojne listine, ugovor po izteku roka in deloma pritožbo. Zato bi bilo treba v tem delu ZIZ spremeniti, pri čemer bi se lahko zgledovali po avstrijski, nemški in hrvaški ureditvi. Vendarle pa ni mogoče reči, da je ZIZ v celoti oziroma v pretežnem delu upniško naravnan. Z vidika dolžnikovega pravnega položaja je ustrezna ocenjevana ureditev nepremičninske izvršbe, oprostitev in omejitev izvršbe, sodnih penalov, ugovora novega dolžnika po 56. a-členu ZIZ, so pa v zakonu tudi instituti, ki upnika deprivilegirajo v razmerju do dolžnika oziroma so dolžniku prijaznejši. To velja za kazni v izvršbi ter ureditev uveljavljanja opozicijskih (in impugnacijskih) ugovornih razlogov.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: Civilni izvršilni postopek, ustavna procesna jamstva, pravica do sodnega varstva, pravica do izjave v postopku, pravica do pritožbe, načelo sorazmernosti, pravica do učinkovite izvršbe.
• Work type: Doctoral dissertation
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2019
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-113380
• COBISS.SI-ID: 17102417
• Publication date in RUL: 28.12.2019

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: Constitutional procedural guarantees in civil enforcement proceedings

Abstract

Civil enforcement procedure is an inseparable part of the right of access to court enshrined in the Constitution and conventions, and, as such, it is ex natura designed to benefit the creditor. Since the creditor is already in the possession of the enforceable title, it is understandable that the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality in enforcement proceedings lack the importance they have in civil substantive law or in civil proceedings. According to the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia and the European Court of Justice, as well as according to legal literature, the creditor’s right to effective enforcement may, in principle, only be encroached upon in exceptional cases or when, due to enforcement, the debtor’s fundamental rights to personal dignity and existence were to be threatened. Ever since the adoption of the Claim Enforcement and Security Act (Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju, hereinafter ZIZ) in 1998, Slovenian legislator has pursued the goal of increasing the effectiveness and turnaround time of enforcement procedures. In regard to the above, striving to do so is a perfectly legitimate, necessary, and appropriate way of ensuring the creditor’s constitutionally and conventionally recognized right to effective access to court. It is however questionable whether or not constitutional (procedural) guarantees of the debtor and other participants to the civil enforcement proceeding are also sufficiently taken into consideration in the system in force under the ZIZ. In this regard, it must be said that, apart from enforcement based on an enforceable title, enforcement based on a trustworthy document is regulated by Slovene legislation as well; the conclusions about the creditor’s privileged position do not apply with this type of enforcement. The creditor’s position is typically not considerably stronger than the debtor’s one with this type of proceedings, as the creditor’s claim has yet to be established by the authority of the court. This thesis discusses the legal mechanisms that reflect the constitutional right of access to court, the right to be heard in the proceedings, and the right of appeal. This thesis contains an analysis of whether relevant legal provisions in the Act are appropriate as regards the relationship between the creditor’s legal status on the one hand and the legal status of the debtor or other participants to the enforcement proceedings on the other. One of the hypotheses revolves around the presumption that in the applicable Slovene system the creditor’s right to effective enforcement is given disproportionate precedence over the constitutional (procedural) guarantees of the debtor and the third party. To this end, case-law and legal literature were analysed and the legal regimes in comparative law examined. The study confirmed that the legal regime in force is not optimal as regards the constitutional (procedural) guarantees of the debtor and the third party. This goes for the debtor’s motion for enforcement suspension, the third party’s objection in conjunction with the third party’s motion for suspension, the debtor’s objection to the enforcement decision based on an authentic document, the objection brought after the expiry of the time-limit set, and, partly, the appeal. This leads to the conclusion that this part of the ZIZ should be amended and that the regimes in force in Austria, Germany, and Croatia could be used an example. Nevertheless, one cannot say that the ZIZ as a whole, or in part, is creditor-oriented. In my opinion, immovable property enforcement as well as exemptions from and restrictions upon enforcement, court penalties, and opposition of the new debtor under article 56a of the ZIZ are suitably regulated from the debtor’s legal position view; however, there are mechanisms present in the Act that put the creditor in an underprivileged position with regard to the debtor, i.e. they are more debtor friendly. This is true for the penalties in the enforcement procedure as well as for the provisions regulating the use of “impugnation” (and “opposition”) grounds.

• Keywords: Civil enforcement proceedings, constitutional procedural guarantees, the right of access to court, the right to be heard in the proceedings, the right of appeal, the principle of proportionality, the right to effective enforcement.