In the process of civil judgment enforcement, parties often tend not to voluntarily comply with court judgments, decisions, or arbitral awards. To anticipate and address such situations, Vietnamese law provides for a comprehensive framework of coercive enforcement measures applicable to judgment debtors who deliberately fail to fulfill their obligations despite possessing sufficient execution capacity. These are instruments of state authority granted to civil judgment enforcement agencies and enforcers. The application of coercive measures must comply with legal provisions and be carefully considered and selected by the enforcer to suit each specific case, aiming to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of the relevant parties. In this article, TNTP will present the system of coercive judgment enforcement measures currently regulated by law.
1. Principles for applying and selecting coercive measures
The selection and application of coercive enforcement measures must not be arbitrary. Instead, it must be grounded in specific legal criteria and procedural safeguards, as articulated under Decree No. 62/2015/ND-CP. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Decree, the enforcement officer must consider the following factors in determining the appropriate enforcement measure:
• Based on the content of the judgment, decision, and the judgment execution obligation: The enforcer must consider the contents of the enforceable judgment or decision, including the type of obligation imposed – whether monetary payment, transfer of property, performance or non-performance of specific act and the nature and extent thereof. The enforcement measure must correspond to the nature of the obligation.
• Consideration of the judgment debtor’s conditions: The financial capability, assets, income, and specific circumstances of the judgment debtor are crucial factors in deciding which enforcement measure can be effectively and practically implemented. For example, the measure of deduction of money from accounts cannot be applied if verification results show that the judgment debtor does not have a bank account; instead, the measure of subtraction of income may be considered.
• Based on the involved party’s written request and actual situation: The legitimate and lawful request of the judgment creditor regarding a coercive measure also serves as a basis for the enforcer’s consideration. Additionally, the specific situation at the locality where the judgment is enforced may influence the selection or organization of the coercive measure.
A balanced consideration of these factors enables enforcement officers to adopt proportionate and legally sound enforcement strategies tailored to each case.
2. System of Coercive Judgment Enforcement Measures
Pursuant to Article 71 of the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments 2008 (as amended in 2014), the following coercive measures are available:
• Deduction of money from accounts; recovery and handling of money and valuable papers of judgment debtors: This measure is applied when the judgment debtor has money in a bank account or owns valuable papers (such as stocks, bonds, etc.). For instance, to deduct money from an account, the enforcer will issue a decision requiring credit institutions to transfer money from the judgment debtor’s account to the judgment enforcement agency to secure the payment obligation. Example: The enforcer requires Bank A to deduct VND 100,000,000 from Mr. B’s savings account to pay Mr. C according to the judgment.
• Subtraction of incomes of judgment debtors: This measure aims to subtract the periodical incomes that the judgment debtor receives for judgment enforcement. The enforcer will require the agency, organization, employer, or social insurance agency currently paying salaries, pensions, allowances, or other lawful incomes of the judgment debtor to perform a subtraction of a certain percentage or amount as stipulated by law. Example: The judgment enforcement agency requires Company X to subtract 20% of employee D’s monthly salary to fulfill the payment obligation to Ms. E according to the legally effective court judgment.
• Attachment and disposal of the debtor’s property: This allows the enforcement officer to attach and dispose of the debtor’s property. This applies to both movable and immovable property, including property held by third parties. For instance, the enforcer may attach and auction Mr. G’s house to pay a debt of VND 5 billion under an arbitral award.
• Exploitation of assets of judgment debtors: Instead of distraining and disposing of assets, the law permits the enforcers to apply the measure of asset exploitation in certain cases (e.g., where the value of the enforcement asset is disproportionately high compared to the judgment obligation). The purpose is to derive income or yields from the asset’s exploitation to satisfy the enforcement obligation. For instance, if the enforcement asset is agricultural land use rights valued at VND 2,000,000,000, the judgment enforcement officer may lease out the land on a seasonal basis and use the proceeds to fulfill a judgment obligation of VND 200,000,000.
• Forcible transfer of objects, property rights, and papers: This measure is applied when the content of the judgment or decision requires the judgment debtor to hand over a specific object (such as an antique, a car agreed upon for sale…), transfer a property right (such as the right to demand payment from a third party, land use rights…), or a certain type of paper (such as a Certificate of land use rights, etc.) to the judgment creditor.
• Forcible performance or non-performance of certain jobs by judgment debtors: This is a group of non-pecuniary coercive measures, applied when the obligation involves performing or not performing a specific act. Example: Forcing Mr. L to dismantle the encroaching construction part on Mr. M’s house according to the judgment.
The above is the article “Coercive measures for the enforcement of civil judgments” that TNTP sends to readers. We hope this article will be useful to readers interested in this issue.
Best regards,
