Abstract
This chapter addresses the relevance of the discovery of the debtor’s assets to ensure the effectiveness of enforcement proceedings. It deals, firstly, with the general issues on this topic, which have an impact on the success of enforcement. It then focuses on the discovery of assets as such, analyzing who should gather and who should provide the information. Finally, it addresses two cross-cutting issues: the use of ICT and cross-border situations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Among many others, see K.D. Kerameus, “Chapter 10. Enforcement proceedings”, in International Enciclopedia of Comparative Law. Vol. XVI (2). Civil Procedure (ed. M. Cappelletti), Tübingen-Leiden-Boston, 1987, 10–1 to 10–146; W. Kennett, “General Report: Enforcement”, in Procedural Laws in Europe (ed. M. Storme), Maklu, Antwerpen-Appeldoon, 2003, 81–111; B. Hess, Making more efficient the enforcement of judicial decisions within the European Union: Transparency of a Debtor’s Assets, Attachment of Bank Accounts, Provisional Enforcement and Protective Measures (Study No. JAI/A3/2002/02), available online at http://www2.ipr.uni-heidelberg.de/studie/General%20Report%20Version%20of%2018%20Feb%202004.pdf). More recently, Y. Taniguchi, “Enforcement of judgments”, in Civil Litigation in Comparative Context (eds. O. G. Chase, H. Hershkoff, L.J. Silberman, J. Sorabji, R. Stürner, Y. Taniguchi, V. Varano), 2nd ed., St. Paul, 2017, 595–642.
- 2.
Article 6(1) ECHR: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law (…)”.
- 3.
Since Hornsby v. Greece (Application no. 18357/91, Judgment of 19 March 1997: at Section 40 the Court clearly stated the following:
The Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6–1) secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the “right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see the Philis vs. Greece judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 209, p. 20, para. 59). However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6–1) should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants—proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious—without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 (art. 6) as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Golder vs. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 16–18, paras. 34–36). Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 (art. 6).
- 4.
The ECtHR, for instance, has explicitly addressed the need to serve on the debtor a seizure or any similar enforcement measure, in order to enable him/her to react before forced and irreversible transmissions are made: see Tsironis v. Greece (Appl. no. 44584/98), judgment of 6 December 2001(Section 27) and Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (Appl. no. 44769/07), judgment of 5 November 2009 (Section 25).
- 5.
- 6.
Operating on the basis of the principle of proportionality when fundamental rights confront is a technique enshrined in Article 52.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, pursuant to which «Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.»
- 7.
See on this F. Gascón Inchausti and M. Requejo Isidro, “A Classic Cross-Border Case: The Usual Situation in the First Instance”, in B. Hess and P. Ortolani (eds.), Impediments of National Procedural Law to the Free Movement of Judgments. Luxembourg Report on European Procedural Law. Volume I, Munich, 2019, 70–73.
- 8.
Supra note 1.
- 9.
B. Hess, supra note 1, 35–38.
- 10.
Established by Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 59–92).
- 11.
See G. Cuniberti and S. Migliorini, The European Account Preservation Order Regulation. A Commentary, CUP, 2018, 178.
- 12.
On the data protection concern, again G. Cuniberti and S. Migliorini, supra note 11, 183–186.
- 13.
M.A. Lupoi, “Enforcement of a Claim with the Support of the New Information Technology. Protection of the Creditor and the Debtor”, in M. Kengiel and Z. Nemessányi (eds.), Electronic Technology and Civil Procedure. New Paths to Justice from Around the World, Dordrecht-Heidelberg-New York–London, 2012, 181–209, specially at 188–196. Addressing the Spanish developments, see P. Peiteado Mariscal, “Posibles aplicaciones telemáticas en el proceso civil”, in C. Senés Motilla (ed.), Presente y Futuro de la e-Justicia en España y la Unión Europea, Pamplona, 2010, 251–277; C. Senés Motilla, “El embargo telemático de cuentas bancarias”, in A. De la Oliva Santos, F. Gascón Inchausti and M. Aguilera Morales (eds.), La e-Justicia en la Unión Europea. Desarrollos en el ámbito europeo y en los ordenamientos nacionales, Pamplona, 2012, 175–195.
- 14.
See J.M. González García, “El Punto Neutro Judicial: una herramienta al servicio de la mayor eficacia de la Administración de Justicia española”, in A. De la Oliva Santos, F. Gascón Inchausti and M. Aguilera Morales (eds.), supra note 13, 197–215.
- 15.
This is a recurrent idea, for instance, in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union addressing recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (see, for instance, case C‑139/10, Prism Investments).
- 16.
See, in this vein, the Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (OJ L 84, 31.3.2010, p. 1–12).
- 17.
It is not, however, the first one. The EU Maintenance Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, OJ L 7, 10.1.2009, p. 1–79) already established in 2009 a system of cooperation of national Central Authorities. Pursuant to Article 61.2 of the Maintenance Regulation, Central Authorities shall be empowered to use all appropriate and reasonable means to obtain certain information, among which (c) “the identification of the debtor’s employer and/or of the debtor’s bank account(s)” and, more broadly “the debtor’s assets”.
References
Cuniberti G, Migliorini S (2018) The European account preservation order regulation. A Commentary. CUP, p 178
Inchausti FG, Requejo Isidro M (2019) A classic cross-border case: the usual situation in the first instance. In: Hess B, Ortolani P (eds) Impediments of national procedural law to the free movement of judgments. Luxembourg Report on European Procedural Law, vol I, Munich, pp 70–73
Kennett W (2003) General report: enforcement. In: Storme M (ed) Procedural laws in Europe storme
Kerameus KD (1987) Chapter 10. Enforcement proceedings. In Cappelletti M (ed) International Enciclopedia of Comparative Law. Civil procedure, vol XVI, no 2, Tübingen–Leiden–Boston, pp 10-1–10-146
Lupoi MA (2012) Enforcement of a claim with the support of the new information technology. protection of the creditor and the debtor. In Kengiel M, Nemessányi Z (eds) Electronic technology and civil procedure. new paths to justice from around the world. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London, pp 181–209
Peiteado Mariscal P (2010) Posibles aplicaciones telemáticas en el proceso civil. In Senés Motilla C (ed) Presente y Futuro de la e-Justicia en España y la Unión Europea, Pamplona, pp 251–277
Senés Motilla C (2012) El embargo telemático de cuentas bancarias. In De la Oliva Santos A, Gascón Inchausti F, Aguilera Morales M (eds) La e-Justicia en la Unión Europea. Desarrollos en el ámbito europeo y en los ordenamientos nacionales, Pamplona, pp 175–195
Taniguchi Y (2017) Enforcement of judgments. In: Chase OG, Hershkoff H, Silberman LJ, Sorabji J, Stürner R, Taniguchi Y, Varano V (eds) Civil litigation in comparative context (eds) 2nd edn., St. Paul, pp 595–642
Villamarín López ML (2017-1) Access to justice under European Case Law. Int J Procedural Law 7:130–155
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gascón-Inchausti, F. (2022). Towards More Effective Enforcement Proceedings Through More Effective Asset Discovery. In: Deguchi, M. (eds) Effective Enforcement of Creditors’ Rights. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 91. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5609-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5609-5_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-5608-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-5609-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)