TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

9

Ustavna in konvencijska pravica do izjave v postopku mora biti zagotovljena tudi v civilnem izvršilnem postopku. Dolžnik, zoper katerega se v izvršbi prisilno izvršuje upnikova terjatev, mora tako imeti možnost, da se brani zoper dovoljeno izvršbo. Sodišče sklep o izvršbi izda v enostranskem postopku, zato se dolžnikova pravica do izjave uresničuje predvsem z ugovorom zoper sklep o izvršbi. Pri zakonski ureditvi ugovora mora biti zagotovljeno ustrezno razmerje med dolžnikovo pravico do izjave na eni strani in upnikovo pravico do učinkovite izvršbe, ki je sestavni del ustavne in konvencijske pravice do sodnega varstva na drugi strani. Ob tem je nujno treba upoštevati, da je pri izvršbi na podlagi izvršilnega naslova upnikov položaj že v izhodišču močnejši od dolžnikovega, za izvršbo na podlagi verodostojne listine pa tega ni mogoče ugotoviti. V prispevku sta obravnavani dve značilnosti ugovora v veljavni ureditvi Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ), ki sta po avtoričinem mnenju vprašljivi z vidika dolžnikove pravice do izjave, in sicer popolna nesuspenzivnost ugovora pod določenimi pogoji in zahteva po obrazloženosti ugovora. Po prikazu ureditev v primerjalnem pravu, nekaterih stališč teorije in sodne prakse je podan poskus kritične ocene pozitivnopravne slovenske ureditve in predlogi za morebitne spremembe.

The constitutional and conventional right to be heard in the proceedings must also be guaranteed in civil enforcement proceedings. The debtor against whom the creditor’s claim is being enforced must have an opportunity to defend himself against the authorised enforcement. The court issues the writ of enforcement in a one-sided proceedings. Therefore, the debtor’s right to be heard can only be realized with an appeal against the writ of enforcement. The legislature must ensure a proper balance between the debtor’s right to be heard on one side and the creditor’s right to an effective enforcement, which is an integral part of the constitutional and conventional right of access to court, on the other. It is necessary to bear in mind that in the case of an enforcement based on an instrument permitting enforcement, the creditor has an upper hand over the debtor from the outset, while such a conclusion cannot be made in the case of an enforcement based on a trustworthy document. The article touches upon two characteristics of the objection provisioned in the Slovenia Claim Enforcement and Security Act, which the author believes are questionable regarding the debtor’s right to be heard, the complete non-suspension of the objection under certain conditions and the request for the explication of the objection. Provisions in the comparative law, some of the theory’s standpoints, and case law are presented, followed by a critical evaluation of the Slovenian positive legislation and recommendations for possible changes.

Objection to the Writ of Enforcement and the Debtor’s Right to be Heard in the Proceedings