The study analyses some of the challenges of enforcement law, raising fundamental questions and ideas. On the one hand, it analyses Hungarian legislative trends in relation to the issue of the limitation period in enforcement law, striking a balance between the principle of creditor priority and the principle of limited debtor protection. On the other hand, it highlights the challenges of cross-border enforcement in the European Union. Finally, addresses the greatest regulatory challenge of the future by outlining the problem of enforcement against digital assets.
A tanulmány a végrehajtási jog kihívásainak néhány dimenzióját elemzi, alapvető kérdések, gondolatok felvetésével. Egyfelől elemzi a végrehajtási jog elévülésének kérdéskörével összehangban a hitelezői érdek elsőbbségének elve és a korlátozott adósvédelem elve közötti egyensúly megteremtésével kapcsolatos magyar jogalkotói trendeket. Másfelől felvillantja a határon átnyúló végrehajtás kihívásait az Európai Unióban, végezetül a jövő legnagyobb szabályozási kihívását érinti, felvázolva a digitális vagyontárgyakra vezetett végrehajtás problémáját.
Judicial and administrative enforcement is a fundamental guarantee of the rule of law: it ensures that final decisions are implemented. At the same time, in recent years, the Hungarian enforcement system has faced several structural and practical difficulties that test the principles of efficiency, proportionality and legal certainty.
This study highlights three dimensions of the challenges of judicial enforcement law and raises fundamental questions and ideas. On the one hand, in connection with the issue of the limitation period for enforcement law, it analyses trends in Hungarian legislation related to striking a balance between the principle of creditor priority and the principle of limited debtor protection. Secondly, it highlights the challenges of cross-border enforcement in the European Union and, finally, raises the biggest regulatory challenge of the future by outlining the problem of enforcement on digital assets.
The fundamental task and objective of enforcement law is the effective enforcement of the creditors' claims. At the same time, the protection of the debtor's human dignity, subsistence and legal security is a constitutional requirement that limits the intensity of enforcement. Act LIII of 1994 on Hungarian Judicial Enforcement (hereinafter: Vht.) attempts to balance these two objectives: to ensure the satisfaction of claims while preventing disproportionate infringements of the debtor's rights.[1]
The principle of the primacy of creditor interests and the principle of limited debtor protection generally are closely connected. The coordination of these principles is an important issue in enforcement proceedings, given that the protection of excessive creditor interests may in some cases conflict with constitutional principles such as the principle of equality before the law.[2] In this context, the aim of debtor protection is to prevent the debtor from becoming completely destitute (personally and financially), while ensuring that the creditor's claims are satisfied as fully as possible.
In the Hungarian Vht. regulatory system, the balance between the principle of priority of creditor interests and the principle of limited debtor protection may generate shifts from one side to the other in response to Hungarian economic and social processes and challenges. Since the 2008 foreign currency loan crisis, limited debtor protection has been given greater emphasis and protection as a fundamental feature of the regulations , for example in response to the economic and social difficulties caused by the 2021 coronavirus pandemic[3] and later by the inflation due to the threat of the war. Most recently, Act LXXIV of 2024 on the basis of Hungary's central budget for 2025 amended the common rules on wage-based enforcement with effect from 1 July 2025. Thus in 2025, the portion of the debtor's monthly net salary that does not exceed 60% of the net minimum wage will be exempt from enforcement. Accordingly, in 2025, HUF 116,029 of the debtor's monthly net wages will be exempt from enforcement, compared to the previous HUF 60.000.[4] According to the ministerial reasoning attached to the law amending the Vht. The purpose of the amendment is to revalue the value limits of the amounts exempt from enforcement (both deductions from wages or emoluments and amounts of money managed by a payment service provider) so that the amount exempt from enforcement covers the minimum cost of living.[5]
In the context of enhanced debtor protection, the question arises whether it is justified to maintain the regulatory system governing the limitation period for enforcement rights, as regulated in Section 57 of the Vht.
Section 57 of the Vht. The regulation concerned has not changed since the law came into force, and the Vht.
- 23/24 -
does not contain specific rules on limitation in this section, but refers back to substantive law rules, because of its procedural nature.[6]
Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code (hereinafter: Ptk.) stipulates that if an enforceable decision has been taken in the course of the proceedings interrupting the limitation period, the limitation period shall be interrupted by the modification of the obligation by agreement and by enforcement measures.[7] According to Section 57 of the Vht., (i) the right of enforcement expires together with the claim to be enforced, (ii) the expiry of the right of enforcement must generally be taken into account upon request, and may be taken into account ex officio if the expiry of the underlying claim must also be taken into account ex officio, (iii) if the expiry of the right of enforcement must be taken into account, no enforcement may be ordered upon a request submitted after the expiry of the limitation period for the right of enforcement, and any enforcement already ordered may not be continued, and finally (iv) the expiry of the right of enforcement is interrupted by any enforcement action. Under this regulatory structure, it is possible that a debtor will remain a debtor for the rest of his or her life in the case of larger debts, as there is no objective, forfeiture deadline for the limitation period for enforcement that would extinguish the right to enforcement.
This regulatory structure has remained unchanged since the entry into force of the Vht. and even dates back to the entry into force of Act IV of 1959 on the Civil Code (hereinafter: old Civil Code). Prior to the entry into force of the old Civil Code, when Decree Law No. 21 of 1955 on Judicial Enforcement entered into force, in line with the civil law rules then in force, there was a period when claims had a general limitation period of 32 years, in accordance with the general rule set out in the 1928 Hungarian Civil Code bill.[8] In line with this, Section 49 of Decree Law No. 21 of 1955 tipulated that the right of enforcement - with the exception of claims to be enforced by immediate collection order [Section 173(2)] - shall expire during the general limitation period specified in civil law. The limitation period was to be calculated from the expiry of the deadline set in the decision or document serving as the basis for the enforcement for the fulfilment of the claim to be enforced, and the limitation period was not interrupted by enforcement measures or other circumstances. The court (notary public) took into account the expiry of the right of enforcement ex officio, on the basis of the bailiff's observations or at the request of the parties.
A Jogkódex-előfizetéséhez tartozó felhasználónévvel és jelszóval is be tud jelentkezni.
Az ORAC Kiadó előfizetéses folyóiratainak „valós idejű” (a nyomtatott lapszámok megjelenésével egyidejű) eléréséhez kérjen ajánlatot a Szakcikk Adatbázis Plusz-ra!
Visszaugrás
