New look ZIZ – M
At the end of March 2021, the amended ZIZ-M entered into force, which introduces changes around enforcement deferment, assets pursued by means of enforcement, the field of family enforcement and the disciplinary responsibility of enforcement officers.
The most important change is probably the new enforcement deferral arrangement (at the request of the debtor or ex officio):
i) where enforcement involves vacating and handing over a property, namely that there is justifiable grounds for staying enforcement against a debtor’s home (apartment or house) if the value of the claim is clearly disproportionate to the value of the property or if the debtor proves that he could not make alternative housing arrangements and continuation of the enforcement procedure would put the position and interests of the debtor in a more precarious position than postponement of the enforcement would put the position and interests of the creditor in;
ii) if the consumer asserts the invalidity of the legal transaction from a directly enforceable notarial deed;
iii) other justified grounds proved by the debtor.
Depending on the grounds for deferral, Article 74 of the ZIZ regulates the time limit of the postponement, namely from three to six months.
Regarding assets pursued by means of enforcement, the amendment in connection with the Property Code, which granted domestic animals special and legal status, adds domestic animals not kept for profitable purposes to the list of assets that may not be pursued by means of enforcement. Payments made to debtors stemming from inclusion in the pilot social welfare scheme also qualify as exempt income from the enforcement procedure.
Current legislation allows a debtor living in a family house or apartment that has been sold to retain the right to live in it as a tenant for three years from the sale date, provided that an application to that effect was filed within a specified deadline. Given that this deadline was normally missed, and the debtor’s right consequently lost, the amendment requires that the court inform the debtor about the deadline and the tenancy right in the enforcement order itself.
Pursuing the goal of protecting the most vulnerable, an obligation to notify the social welfare center of foreclosure on a property that is the debtor’s home was added, which allows the social welfare center to take timely action to help the debtor and his family. In order to maximize child safeguards in cases of enforcement procedures involving child custody, the court is now no longer required to appoint the enforcement officer proposed by the creditor, which means that the court can select the most experienced and professionally qualified enforcement officer. The court may, at request of a professionally qualified person (who must be present at the enforcement), the social welfare center or the person against whom the enforcement is being carried out, defer enforcement if there are circumstances due to which the enforcement would not be in favor of the child. To protect the interests of children, a new chapter has been added, which regulates interim injunctions to protect the interests of children, issued pursuant to conditions set out in the Family Code. Among other things, the provisions stipulate that no objection to an interim injunction is allowed if the debtor had the opportunity to challenge the injunction prior to its issuance, which pursues the goal of expediting the proceedings.
The new regulation also touched on the definition of the term of execution of enforcement acts. Specifically, it now additionally reads that as long as measures imposed by order of the President of the Supreme Court (in case of natural and other serious disasters, pandemics or similar major emergencies) are in force, enforcement and security acts are to be executed only in urgent matters and in other cases only when danger to human life and health or high-value property needs to be averted.
Regarding enforcement officers, the amendment legislation makes provision for acts that constitute a serious disciplinary violation: i) assessment of costs, payment or security contrary to the applicable tariff, ii) performance of an act other than enforcement and security, iii) passing on information regarding the creditor, debtor or other data and documents on acts of enforcement and insurance or provide access to such data and documents to a person who is not entitled to such data.
Author: Tina Marciuš Ravnikar, Associate
