Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:09:03.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organs of Enforcement and Enforceable Instruments in a Comparative Perspective*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2016

K.D. Kerameus
Get access

Extract

Professor Lawrence M. Friedman, the well-known legal historian and legal sociologist, stressed in a recent essay that the contemporary relevance of law within broader social phenomena could be analysed in terms of community expectations. He wrote that during the 19th century “[p]eople knew that they were exposed, at all times, to the risks of sudden disaster — disease, death in childbirth and childhood, accidents, chronic economic uncertainties. They faced these calamities without private insurance, without public welfare programs, and without legal liability rules that made it practical to collect damages from private citizens and companies”. Societies of the past fostered a “culture of low expectations” with regard to law as well as to life itself. In contrast, our contemporary society driven by medical, technical and social developments heads towards the “reduction of uncertainty”. Amazing progress in medicine, the full-fledged emergence of the welfare state, and the expansion of private liability for accidents and injuries have, at least in Western countries, greatly enhanced people's expectations from the social mechanisms. The stature of law has grown accordingly to unknown pre-eminence since all methods of reducing risks are now shaped in terms of legal norms.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , Winter 1991 , pp. 43 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Friedman, , The Limits of Law: A Critique and a Proposal, in Limits of Legal Regulation. Grenzen rechtlicher Steuerung, Voigt, R., ed., (Pfaffenweiler, 1989) 151–172Google Scholar.

2 Id., at 166.

3 Id.

4 Id., at 167.

5 For example, Amendments; XIII, sec. 2 (1865); XV, sec. 2 (1870); XIX, sec. 2 (1920); XXIV, sec. 2 (1964); XXVI, sec. 2 (1971).

6 “In a particular connection”, according to 30 C.J.S. 697 (New York, 1965)Google Scholar.

7 The American and English Encyclopaedia of Law, Garland, D.S. and McGehee, L.P., eds., under the supervision of Cockcroft, J. (New York and London, 2nd ed., 1899) vol. 11, “Executions”, p. 609Google Scholar. Cf. also Pierson v. Hammond, 22 Tex. 585: “It is the process by which the sentence of the law is put in force”.

8 U.S. v. Nourse, 9 Pet. 8, at 28; 11 U.S. 268, at 271 (1835).

9 Coke, E., Institutes of the Laws of England, vol. 3 (London, 1797) Chap. CI, p. 211 [212]Google Scholar.

10 Cf., e.g., Rosenberg, , Gaul, and Schilken, , Zwangsvollstreckungsrecht (Munich, 10th ed., 1987) sec. 24 I, p. 295Google Scholar; sec. 30, p. 364.

11 For example, C. Civ. Proc. of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, art. 410; C. Civ. Proc. of Bulgaria, arts. 405 and 407.

12 Supra n. 8 at 28-29 (Pet.), or at 271-272 (U.S.).

13 Cf., Wetzell, G.W., System des ordentlichen Civilprocesses (Leipzig, 3rd ed., 1878) sec. 43, at pp. 514–515Google Scholar, sec. 48, at pp. 601-602; Blomeyer, A., Zivilprozessrecht Vollstreckungsverfahren (Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1975) 13Google Scholar.

14 Banerjee, , Law of Execution (Allahabad, 1968) 9 and n. 13Google Scholar.

15 Prof.Stalev's, report, Enforcement Proceedings in the European Socialist States (1988) 2Google Scholar.

16 In the USSR, the court's executor (C. Civ. Proc. of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, art. 348); in Bulgaria, the judge-executor (C. Civ. Proc., art. 323); in the German Democratic Republic, the secretary of the regional court (Kreisgericht: C. Civ. Proc., sec. 95); in Poland, the executor (C. Civ. Proc., arts. 758-759). This information has been drawn from Prof. Stalev's report, ibid., at 3.

17 See C. Civ. Proc. of Venezuela, art. 523; C. Civ. Proc. of the Federal District of Mexico, art. 490; C. Civ. Proc. of Cuba, art. 473; C. Civ. Proc. of Costa Rica, art. 981; C. Civ. Proc. of the Nation of Argentina (1967), art. 501(1); C. Civ. Proc. of Uruguay, art. 489. Also El Codigo Procesal Civil Modelo para Iberoamerica, Anteproyecto (1988) arts. 319.2, 319.4, 320. The only exception seems to be the Preliminary Draft for the Code of Civ. Proc. for the State of Mexico (1974), prepared by Prof. Humberto Briseño Sierra, that entrusts enforcement to other bodies alien to the judiciary. This information has been drawn from Prof.Vescovi's, report, The Process of Execution by a Single Creditor in Latin America (1989) 6–7Google Scholar.

18 See Garsonnet, E. and Cézar-Bru, Ch., Traité théorique et pratique de procédure civile et commerciale en justice de paix et devant les conseils de prud'hommes (Paris, 3rd ed., 1913) vol. IV/1, no. 40, pp. 117–118Google Scholar; also Glasson, E., Tissier, A. and Morel, R., Traité théorique et pratique d'organisation judiciaire, de compétence et deprocédure civile (Paris, 3rd ed., 1932) vol. IV, no. 998, pp. 2–3Google Scholar. But Laborde-Lacoste, M., Précis élémentaire de procédure civile et de voies d'exécution (Paris, 3rd. ed., 1931) no. 1264, p. 283Google Scholar, maintains that “(l)a procédure d'exécution est une procédure judiciaire”; cf., also no. 1252, 1°, p. 279; no. 1270, p. 284.

19 See Vincent, J. and Prévault, J., Voies d'exécution et procédures de distribution (Paris, 16th ed., 1987) nos. 48-50, pp. 35–38Google Scholar. Also Carbonnier, J., Droit civil, vol. IV, “Les Obligations” (Paris, 10th ed., 1979) no. 144, p. 574Google Scholar: “une pratique administrative qu'a fait naître la pénurie de logements”.

20 See J. Vincent and J. Prévault, ibid., at no. 48, p. 37.

21 See the discussion in Blomeyer, supra n. 13, at 2-3; Rosenberg, Gaul and Schilken, supra n. 10, at sec. 2 I, pp. 8-9, and sec. 5 I 1, pp. 34-35. The same trend is also discernible in Belgium: Watelet, P., “Les saisies conservatoires et les voies d'exécution”, in Le Code judiciaire (Travaux de la Faculté de Droit de Namur, 1969) 173–219, at 177Google Scholar.

22 Cf., on the one hand, Amonn, K., Grundriss des Schuldbetreibungsund Konkursrechts (Bern, 4th ed., 1988) sec. 1, no. 11, p. 19Google Scholar; on the other hand, Habscheid, W., “The Enforcement of Non-money Judgments in Switzerland”, in Swiss Reports Presented at the XIIth International Congress on Comparative Law (Zurich, 1987) 93, at 96Google Scholar.

23 Utsökningsbalk (Law on Execution of Judgments) of 25 June 1981, SFS 1981: 774Google Scholar.

24 For example, Saudi Arabia. See Palmer, and Jordan, , “Saudi Arabia — Enforcing Private Debts” (Jan. 1986) 5 Int. Financ. L. R. 46–47Google Scholar.

25 Jacobsson, U., “Regional Report from Scandinavia”, in Trends in the Enforcement of Non-money Judgments and Orders, Jacobsson, U. and Jacob, J., eds., (Deventer, 1988) 111, at 114–115Google Scholar; J. Jacob, “General Report”, ibid., at 42-43. A similar, although not quite as developed, administrative involvement is provided for in Finland as well through the Enforcement Officers with the Chief Executor Officer as their head; cf. U. Jacobsson, ibid., at 138-139.

26 Cf. Prof. Vescovi's report, supra n. 17, at 8 and 29.

27 U. Jacobsson, supra n. 25, at 133-134; J. Jacob, supra n. 25, at 43.

28 U. Jacobsson, supra n. 25, at 117, 120.

29 C. Civ. Proc., sees. 753(1) and 766. See Rosenberg, Gaul and Schilken, supra n. 10, sec. 25, in particular under II 2a, at p. 306-308; Puttfarken, H.-J., “Gegenwartsprobleme des Zwangsvollstreckungsrechts — Die Vollstreckung von Zivilurteilen und die Vollstreckungsmittel des Gerichts im Recht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland”, in Deutsche Länderberichte zum XII Internationalen Kongress für Rechtsvergleichung 1986 Australien, Schlechtriem, P., ed., (Baden-Baden, 1987) 95–119, at 100Google Scholar.

30 Goldstein, S., “Execution of Judgments and Means of Enforcement Available to Ordinary Courts”, in Israeli Reports to the XII International Congress of Comparative Law, Goldstein, S., ed., (Jerusalem, 1986) 150–229, at 153Google Scholar.

31 Rheinstein, M., “United States of America”, Int. Enc. Comp. L., vol. IGoogle Scholar: National Reports, U-155, sub III.

32 See supra n. 17.

33 See supra n. 16.

34 “Exekutionsgericht”: Austrian Law of Execution (1896), secs. 17–23Google Scholar.

35 Sheriff's court: Vilhjâlmsson, T., “Iceland”, Int. Enc. Comp. L., vol. IGoogle Scholar: National Reports, I-5, sub VIII.

36 C. Civ. Prpc., secs. 764 and 802. See Rosenberg, Gaul and Schilken, supra n. 10, sec. 27, at pp. 349-356.

37 H.-J. Puttfarken, supra n. 29, at 100.

38 A unique exception is the jurisdiction of the original court with respect to non-money enforcement: obligations to perform or not to perform or to tolerate a specific act (C. Civ. Proc., secs. 887(1), 888(1), 890(1), and 890(2)); see Rosenberg, Gaul and Schilken, supra n. 10, sec. 29 III, pp. 362-363; Blomeyer, supra n. 13, at 21, 66.

39 Schmidt, R., Lehrbuch des deutschen Zivilprozessrechts (Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1910) sec. 138 II, p. 877Google Scholar; Wach, A., Vorträge über die Reichs-Civilprocessordnung (Bonn, 2nd ed., 1896) 299Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Gaul and Schilken, supra n. 10, sec. 5 I 2, p. 35.

40 E. Glasson, A. Tissier and R. Morel, supra n. 18, no. 1000, p. 7, already spoke of a “general and traditional principle”; also E. Garsonnet and Ch. Cézar-Bru, supra n. 18, no. 2, p. 5, with regard to enforcement proceedings properly speaking. For today see J. Vincent and J. Prévault, supra no. 19, no. 43, p. 32.

41 See Herzog, P., Civil Procedure in France (The Hague, 1967) 561CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 J. Vincent and J. Prévault, supra n. 19, no. 43, p. 32, stress the feature of “pure procedural technique”.

43 Reepinghen, Ch. V., “Report”, in Code judiciaire et son annexe, Loi du 10 octobre 1967 (Brussels, 1967) 355Google Scholar.

44 See J. Vincent and J. Prévault, supra n. 19, no. 46, pp. 34-35.

45 Bericht der Kommission zur Vorbereitung einer Reform der Zivilgerichtsbarkeit (The Federal Ministry of Justice, Bonn, 1961) 428Google Scholar. Cf. Blomeyer, supra n.13, at 67-68.

46 Belgian Judicial Code, art. 1396(3).

47 H.-J. Puttfarken, supra n. 29, at 119.

48 C. Civ. Proc. of the German Democratic Republic, sec. 2(2) 2.

49 Cf. supra sec. II A; Rosenberg, Gaul and Schilken, supra n. 10, sec. 2511, pp. 300-301.

50 Vescovi Report, supra n. 17, at 3, 4, 29.

51 See supra sec. II A, at n. 25.

52 Resnik, J., “Managerial Judges” (1982) 96 Harv. L. R. 374–448, at 445CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 J. Vincent and J. Prévault, supra n. 19, no. 40, pp. 30-31. Perrot, R., Institutions judiciaires (Paris, 2nd ed., 1986) no. 447 d, p. 445Google Scholar, calls this accumulation of capacities “the most serious problem”. Rey, J., Ueber die Grundsätze der Rechtspflege in England, in Vergleichung mit derselben in Frankreich und einigen andern alten und neuen Staaten (transl. from French) vol. II (Weimar, 1828) 232Google Scholar, already stressed the party-controlled activation of huissiers.

54 Court of Appeal, Paris, 25 April 1838: D. Rep. v. Responsabilités no. 471, 3°.

55 16 Dec. 1974, J.C.P. 1975. II. 17962, note Lindon. The intrusion seems to have been tolerated since it was not a mere private interference without authorization.

56 See Martin, D.F., “A Comparative Study of Enforcement in England and France” (1982) 1 Civ. Justice Quarterly 219–236, at 220–221Google Scholar.

57 Id., at 233-234.

58 Beamter: Law on Judicial Organization, sec. 154. See Blomeyer, supra n. 13, at 14-15.

59 See Rosenberg, Gaul and Schilken, supra n. 10, sec. 25 II 1, p. 305 and n. 44.

60 See supra n. 29.

61 Judgment of the full bench of the Supreme Court of 10 June 1886, RGZ 16, 396-409.

62 RGZ 82, 85-95.

63 See Rosenberg, Gaul and Schilken, supra n. 10, sec. 25 IV 1 b, pp. 316-320; cf., however, sec. 25 IV 1 c, pp. 320-322.

64 See supra nn. 61-62.

65 See J. Vincent and J. Prévault, supra n. 19, no. 48, pp. 36-37; in particular C.E. 30 Nov. 1923, Couitéas, D.P. 1923.3.59, conclusions Rivet, S. 1923.3.57, note Hariou: State responsibility for illegally denying assistance to execution.

66 See, in France, new C. Civ. Proc., art. 131.

67 Cf. J. Vincent and J. Prévault, supra n. 19, no. 37, pp. 28-29. See also C. Civ. Proc. of Argentina, art. 500 (Code of the Nation 1967) for the collection of procedural fines and of fees falling within judicial costs. Cf. C. Civ. Proc. of Guatemala, art. 294, with respect to judicial or other public settlements, mortgage credits, mortgage credit bonds, and pledges.

68 129,415 cases as opposed to 102,065 cases in 1981: Németh, J., Die aktuelle Entwicklung des Rechts der Zwangsvollstreckung in Ungarn (Budapest, 1983) 13Google Scholar; cf. p. 34, n. 15.

69 On the historical development see Coing, H., Europäisches Privatrecht, vol. I (Munich, 1985) 482–483Google Scholar.

70 “Traité de la procédure civile no. 438”, in Oeuvres de Pothier, Bugnet, M., ed., vol. X (Paris, 1848) 198–199Google Scholar.

71 In some deviation, Ripert, G. and Boulanger, J., Traité de droit civil d'après le Traité de Planiol, vol. II (Paris, 1957) no. 378, p. 150Google Scholar, regard the Middle Age notarii as kind of clerks attached to the various “jurisdictions laïques et ecclésiastiques”.

72 See also E. Garsonnet and Ch. Cézar-Bru, supra n. 18, no. 50, p. 141 and n. 17, who rely on art. 1134 C.C. as well: “Les conventions légalement formées tiennent lieu de loi à ceux qui les out faites”. J. Vincent and J. Prévault, supra n. 19, no. 35, p. 28, add the guarantee of legal security provided by the notarial office.

73 Oeuvres de Pothier, supra n. 70, no. 438 to the end, p. 199.

74 A valid submission to enforcement through a notarial document is often called pactum paratae executionis (cf., e.g., Coing, supra n. 69, at 482). However, it has to be distinguished from the French clause “de voie parée” that allows the creditor to sell the debtor's immovables without complying with the requirements and procedures provided for by the law, and that is invalid under the French C. Civ. Proc., art. 742; see E. Garsonnet and Ch. Cézar-Bru, supra n. 18, no. 38,1°, pp. 109-110 and nn. 9-12.

75 Law of 25 Ventôse An XI, art. 19.

76 German C. Civ. Proc., sec. 794(1), no. 5.

77 Vescovi Report, supra n. 17, at 4.

78 C. Civ. Proc. of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, art. 338; C. Civ. Proc. of the German Democratic Republic, sec. 88; C. Civ Proc. of Bulgaria, art. 237; C. Civ. Proc. of Poland, art. 777.

79 Bulgaria (Stalev Report, supra n. 15, at 8); Hungary (J. Németh, supra n. 68, at 6, 9-10).

80 C. Civ. Proc. of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, art. 338, n. 8.

81 Law no. 4 (1979), effective from October 1, 1980.

82 Art. 22, no. 5, of the law mentioned in n. 81, supra. See Iseki, M. and Higashi, T., “Civil Execution”, in Doing Business in Japan, Kitagawa, Z., Gen. ed., vol. VII (New York, 1989) XIV 6–9 to XIV 6–10Google Scholar.

83 See Takeshita, M., “Die Reformbestrebungen im Zwangsvollstreckungsrecht” in Recht in Japan, vol. 1 (1975) 31–36, at 31–33Google Scholar; Yoshino, Sh. and Eubel, P., “Zivilprozessrecht”, in Eubel, P. and others, Das japanische Rechtssystem (Frankfurt, a.M., 1979) 159–187, at 177Google Scholar. Similar doubts are sometimes expressed in Europe as well; see Blomeyer, supra n. 13, sec. 14 II 2 f, p. 44.

84 “Executions”, 33 C.J.S. 136, sec. 5a (New York, 1942)Google Scholar.

85 Knights v. Martin, 40 N.E. 358-359 (Supreme Court of Illinois, 1895). For the notions of “rendition” and “entry” of judgment, see Riesenfeld, S., Cases and Materials on Creditors' Remedies and Debtors' Protection (St. Paul, Minn., 4th ed., 1987) ch. I A 2 A, note 2, pp. 56–59Google Scholar.

86 S.L. Crook Corporation v. Deboe, 113 S.W. 2d 445, at 448 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1938).

87 33 C.J.S. 136, supra n. 84, with reference to Struther v. Richardson, 30 La. Ann. 1269.

88 Giordano v. Wolcott, 134 A. 2d 593, at 595 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, 1957), also relied upon by In re Ved Elva. Inc., D.C.N.J. 260 F. Supp. 978, at 982 (1966)Google Scholar.

89 See supra sec. III B, at n. 69.

90 Cf. J. Carbonnier, supra n. 19, no. 47, pp. 169-170.

91 See Zweigert, K. and Kôtz, H., Introduction to Comparative Law (transl. by Weir, T., Oxford, 1987) vol. II, p. 48Google Scholar; and cf. Schlesinger, R., “The Notary and the Formal Contract in Civil Law”, in Report of the [New York] Law Revision Commission, Acts, Recommendation and Study relating to the Seal and to the Enforcement of Certain Written Contracts (Albany, 1941) 59–70Google Scholar.

92 Supra, at nn. 85-87.

93 See H. Coing, supra n. 69, at 483.

94 See the text supra, at nn. 19-25.

95 Cf. the well-balanced conclusion by S. Goldstein, supra n. 30, at 227-229.