TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

5

Avtorica obravnava odnos med upnikovimi in dolžnikovimi pravicami v izvršbi s poudarkom na vlogi, ki jo ima pri tem država. Na upnikovi strani lahko pride do kršitve pravice do izvršbe, ki je eden od elementov pravice do sodnega varstva, ter do kršitve pravice do mirnega uživanja premoženja. Na dolžnikovi strani pa lahko prav tako pride do kršitve pravice do mirnega uživanja premoženja; če gre za poseg v njegov dom, pa tudi do kršitve pravice do spoštovanja zasebnega in družinskega življenja. Iz teoretičnega koncepta izvršbe izhaja, da je izvršilni postopek nujno naravnan v korist upnika in v uresničevanje njegove pravice do izvršbe, varstvo dolžnika pa je tako materialno (omejitve in oprostitve izvršbe) kot tudi procesno (možnosti ugovorov in pravnih sredstev) zagotovljeno v zakonu. Avtorica na podlagi pregledane sodne prakse ESČP ugotavlja, kje je meja med tako imenovano učinkovitostjo izvršbe in varstvom dolžnikovih pravic v izvršbi, pri čemer ima država ključno vlogo, saj mora zagotoviti učinkovit sistem izvršbe in hkrati dolžnikom omogočiti ustrezno varstvo. Iz sodne prakse ESČP izhaja, da je cilj izvršbe upnikovo poplačilo, ki ga omejujejo dolžnikove pravice, državi pa zaradi prisilnega monopola nalaga ureditev teh razmerij, pri čemer ji dopušča široko polje proste presoje.

The author presents and analyses the relationship between creditor’s and debtor’s rights in the enforcement procedure with an emphasis on the role of the state. On the creditor’s side, both a violation of the right to enforcement as one of the elements of the right to trial and also a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property may occur. On the debtor’s side, both a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, and in reference to interference with home, a violation of the right to respect for private and family life may occur. The enforcement procedure must in theory be oriented in favour of the creditor and his right to enforcement, whereas the debtor’s protection is provided by law, both substantially (restrictions and exemptions of enforcement) and procedurally (possibilities of filing objections and other legal remedies). The author determines the boundary between the efficiency of the enforcement and the protection of the debtor’s rights after the consultation of the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) case-law. The state plays a key role, as it must ensure an effective enforcement system while providing debtors with adequate protection. The ECtHR sets the creditor’s repayment as the goal of enforcement and the debtor’s rights as restrictions on enforcement. Moreover, the ECtHR imposes a regulation of these relations on the state due to its coercive monopoly, leaving it with a wide margin of discretion.

Establishing the Boundary between Effective Enforcement and the Protection of Debtor’s Rights: Analysis of the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights