The enforcement stage is the stage where court’s judgments are enforced. Although the enforcement stage is explicitly regulated by law, in practice, numerous challenges arise that may affect the judgment creditor’s rights. In this article, TNTP will analyze the practical challenges that arise during the enforcement stage based on our direct experience.
1. The court’s judgment lacks clarity
• In many cases, the court’s judgment may lack specific decision part that needs to be enforced, especially in disputes involving monetary claims or financially valued assets.
• When the court’s decision is unclear, it poses challenges for enforcement agencies during judgment enforcement. In such cases, the court must explain the unclear decision in accordance with Article 486 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, which governs the interpretation and correction of judgments and decisions. Specifically:
– The judgment creditors, the judgment debtors, parties with related rights and obligations in the enforcement process and the enforcement agency have the right to submit written requests to the court that issued the judgment or decision, to request for clarification and correction of any ambiguous parts of the judgment to facilitate enforcement.
– The judge who issued the decision or presided over the trial has the responsibility to clarify and correct any unclear part in the judgment or decision. If they are no longer work in the court, the Chief Justice of that court becomes responsible for their charge.
– The interpretation of judgments and decisions must be based on the minutes of the court session/meeting, the deliberation records and the other related documentation.
– Any corrections to judgments or decisions must comply with Article 268 of this Code.
Thus, when a court’s decision in the judgment is unclear, the judgment creditor, the judgment debtor, relevant parties and the enforcement agency have the right to request the court to clarify it as a basis for enforcement.
2. The Debtor ceases operation
In many instances, a creditor’s lawsuit is upheld by the court through a legally binding judgment requiring the debtor to repay its debts. However, when enforcement proceedings reveal that the debtor ceases operation, the chances of a successful recovery become significantly diminished.
When a debtor ceases operations, it no longer generates revenue to repay its debts. In such cases, the enforcement process requires an asset verification step to proceed effectively. According to Article 44 of the 2008 Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments, the enforcement officer has the authority to verify the judgment debtor’s ability to fulfill its obligations. If enforcement is carried out based on a creditor’s request and the creditor cannot verify the debtor’s financial status despite taking all necessary measures, the creditor may request the enforcement officer to conduct verification. This request must be in writing and detailing all the applied measures and including supporting documents.
Thus, when the debtor ceases operations, the creditor can either conduct an independent asset verification or request assistance from the enforcement agency to verify the debtor’s assets and conditions for execution, thereby ensuring the enforcement of the judgment.
Even after winning in court, businesses often face major hurdles during enforcement that can threaten their rights. These challenges require businesses to take practical and legally compliant measures to resolve enforcement issues.
We are pleased to present this comprehensive analysis from TNTP addressing: “Debt Collection Challenges: Barriers in Enforcement”. We hope this article is useful to our readers.
Best regards,
