Practical aspects of applying Article 31 of the Court Enforcement Officers Act and its interpretation in enforcement proceedings

Abstract

The article discusses the issue of distribution of funds seized from the debtor’s bank account in the context of Article 31 of the Act on Court Enforcement Officers, whose interpretation is a source of discrepancies in the practice of court enforcement officers. The aim is to demonstrate how - in the practice of court enforcement officers - Article 31 of this Act should be applied and what its correct interpretation is. In search for solutions and uniform practice, existing legislation, case law and jurisprudence are reviewed, analysed and evaluated. An attempt is
also made to reconstruct the counterpart of Article 31 of the Court Enforcement Officers Act in the previous law, i.e. Article 22 of the Court Enforcement Officers and Enforcement Act, in terms of establishing the point in time from which the deadline for the transfer of funds should be correctly calculated. The practical problem concerning the issue of the court enforcement officer's obligation to wait before transferring funds from each seized bank account is also analysed. This particularly applies to funds held in different banks (which have different names).
It is therefore problematic to take into account (not to take into account) an enforcement method such as execution against a bank account. In addition, an issue is raised concerning the court enforcement officer’s discretion to transfer funds from the first payment between the 7th and 14th day, which is unjustified. Enforcement proceedings are dynamic and the situation may develop within such a time frame, which should not be left to the discretion of the court enforcement officer. In the outlined research area, the principle of plurality of research methods is
applied. The aim is to correctly interpret the provision under examination. Formal-dogmatic, axiological and historical methods are used. The indicated issues have
not yet been the subject of detailed analyses in case law or legal scholarship. The result of the research is the indication of the proper interpretation of the analysed
provision, which is connected with the existence of an imbalance between the legal positions of the creditor and the debtor.