You are on page 1of 5

The lawsuit acknowledges two stages: the judgment and the forced

execution. Before the judgment the court is called to establish the rights of
the plaintiff and the obligations of the defendant, by pronouncing a judgment
which represents a writ of execution. In the forced execution stage are being
accomplished the rights acknowledged by the court order and by other writs
of execution.
The forced execution has been defined as being The totality of the
norms regulating the ways and means by which, by the instrumentality of
the enforcement bodies, the creditor achieves the rights established by the
received writ of execution through the patrimonial constraint of his debtor 1
The writs of execution must be enforced by observing the legal
provisions, in order not to prejudice the rights of the parties or of other
persons. However, when performing the forced execution can be committed
a series of irregularities, and in order to remove them the law has created the
procedural means of the challenge on enforcement, by which the parties or
third parties harmed by the enforcement can complain to the competent
court. Therefore, as shown in the speciality literature, the challenge on
enforcement is the procedural means specific to the last stage of the civil
case, that is the forced execution2
In the civil procedure code the challenge on enforcement is regulated
in the VIth section of chapter I of Book V in 1rt. 399-404.
The legal kind of its establishment has been contested in the doctrine,
as at a short analysis the regulation of the challenge on enforcement suggests
the idea of a stage of appeal, but also of an administrative activity.

1
G, Porumb, Teoria Generala a executarii silite si unele proceduri speciale, Ed. Stiintifica, Bucuresti, p. 16
2
Ioan Les, Legislatia Executarii Silite-Comentarii si Explicatii, Editura C.H. Beck, Bucuresti, 2007, pag.
1039
Starting from the text of art. 399 of the Civil Procedure Code,
according to which any forced execution can be challenged by the
interested parties or by the parties harmed by the enforcement, at a first
sight it seems that this challenge is a stage of appeal generated against
forced execution deeds.
The challenge on enforcement, being labelled as a stage of appeal it
was considered that it can not be included in the category of ordinary stages
of appeal, nor in the category of extraordinary stages of appeal.
It was shown that the question of the legal nature of the challenge
was raised especially for the admissibility of the challenge action. If the
challenge on enforcement is considered to be a stage of appeal, then the
declaratory action can be admitted due to the lack of a performance action.
But if the challenge is seen as a claim action, that is for the enforcement of
the right itself, then the party entitled to use the challenge does not have any
more access to the declaratory action.3
Indeed, the two positions of the challenge on enforcement are
presented differently. In all the cases where the challenge on enforcement is
exercised by the parties, it has the physiognomy of a stage of appeal, as by
using it one seeks a similar effect to the dissolution of an order or of a
jurisdictional deed, respectively the dissolution of enforcement deeds or
measures. Due to this cause, it is considered that the challenge on
enforcement is a stage of appeal, but with a special character. 4
The civil procedure code, art.399 contains a general formulation
regarding the subjects of the challenge on enforcement. According to this
text, any forced execution can be challenged by the interested parties or by
3
Dan, Constantin, Tudorache, Contestatia la executare, Editura Hamangiu 2006, pag. 20
4
Ioan Les, Legislatia Executarii Silite-Comentarii si Explicatii, Editura C.H. Beck, Bucuresti, 2007, pag.
1040
the parties harmed by enforcement. A similar formulation can be found in
art. 58 of Law no. 188/2000 regarding court enforcement officers.
Such an interest is mainly addressed to the persons directly involved
in the legal enforcement report: the creditor and the debtor.
Most often the challenge on enforcement action is used by the debtor,
its interest being of temporising the action taken against its assets, even if
only to get a respite for the delivery of the assets or for the payment he was
bound to make by a writ of execution.
The creditors can be harmed by some deeds of the enforcement
bodies, represented by omissions or the accomplishment of some deeds
irregularly; examples: to the construction of the writ of execution is given
another meaning, bringing to the decrease of the debt, to making unavailable
a sufficient number of assets of the debtor, to considering some of the assets
as unmarketable, establishing some terms for the procedural deeds beyond
the limits provided by the law.5
The challenge action can also be used by foreigners in the execution
report. Third parties can use this procedural action only if they have been
harmed by the forced execution deeds or measures. Otherwise, third parties
can not justify any interest in exercising the challenge of enforcement.
Besides, interest is a general condition of exercising any stage of appeal and
in fulfilling any pleading. The exercise of the challenge on enforcement is
also conditioned by the fulfilment of the other conditions regarding the
procedural quality and capacity. Also, for third parties, the challenge on
enforcement does not represent the only procedural means of complaining

5
Dan, Constantin, Tudorache, Contestatia la executare, Editura Hamangiu 2006, pag. 47
against the proceedings taken for several assets of their property. They can
also turn to the promotion of a claim action or to a possession action.6
The prosecutor can challenge the enforcement in the cases provided
by art. 45 line 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to it the prosecutor
can act each time it is necessary in order to protect the legitimate rights of
under aged children, of persons under interdiction and of the missing
persons, as well as in the cases expressly provided by the law.
It was established that against the execution of the common goods the
challenge on enforcement can be also brought by only one of the spouses,
because it represents a means of conservation of the goods both spouses
benefit from.
The under aged who turned 14 can challenge the enforcement, with
the previous agreement of the parents, and when its interests are contrary to
the interests of one of the parents, the challenge will be lodged with the
agreement of the other parent signing together with the under aged person
and assisting him/her throughout the judgment. The challenge made by other
persons in the name of the under aged person can be appropriated by him
only with the agreement of his legal tutor.7
The rights holder over the assets of the enforcement can make the
challenge, regardless whether he is in the material possession of the assets
under proceedings. What interests is not the factual possession, but if the
person making the challenge has behaved as a holder of a real right over the
assets and if under these conditions he was harmed in the enforcement.8
In the Romanian procedural law there is not only one challenge on
enforcement, but several types are regulated, according to their object and
6
Ioan Les, Legislatia Executarii Silite-Comentarii si Explicatii, Editura C.H. Beck, Bucuresti, 2007, 1042
7
Dan, Constantin, Tudorache, Contestatia la executare, Editura Hamangiu 2006, pag. 49
8
A se vedea Trib. Suprem, Colegiul Civil, decizia nr. 203/1952, C.D, 1952-1954, vol I, p. 386
purpose. Therefore, according to the Civil Procedure Code regulation, there
is the proper challenge on enforcement, by which is seaked the dissolution
of the writs of execution made by infringing the rules of development of the
forced execution activity and there is the challenge on enforcement, which
seeks to clarify the meaning, the extent and the enforcement of the writ.
Such a distinction is made by art. 399-400 of the Civil Procedure Code. The
challenges regarding the understanding, extent and enforcement of the
purview of the order under enforcement, referred to in art. 399-400 of the
Civil Procedure Code are known in the doctrine under the name of writ
challenges. All the other challenges as per art. 399(1) (first part of the text)
and art. 400(1) of Civil Procedure Code and concentrated on the prosecution
are known as proper challenges on enforcement.