The sale of immovable property in enforcement proceedings constitutes one of the most severe means of compulsory enforcement of a monetary claim and is applied only when the debt cannot be recovered through other, less intrusive means of enforcement.
Immovable property, including apartments, houses, commercial premises, and land, may be subject to enforcement for the satisfaction of a creditor’s claim. The enforcement procedure entails the registration of a notice of enforcement in the real estate cadastre, the determination of the property’s value, and its sale either by public auction or private agreement, following which the proceeds of the sale are distributed to the creditors in accordance with the applicable rules on priority and distribution.
Priority of Enforcement Measures and Protection of the Enforcement Debtor
In enforcement proceedings, before resorting to the sale of immovable property, it must first be determined whether there are other assets or means from which the debt can be effectively recovered within a reasonable period of time. In practice, enforcement is generally carried out first against the debtor’s salary, pension, or other regular monetary income, provided that such income exists and is sufficient to satisfy the claim. Only where such means are unavailable or insufficient does enforcement proceed against other assets, including movable and immovable property.
When selecting the means and object of enforcement, the public enforcement officer is required to apply the principle of proportionality, taking into account the relationship between the amount of the debt and the value of the assets subject to enforcement. The purpose of this principle is to ensure that, whenever possible, the least burdensome means of enforcement for the enforcement debtor is used, while at the same time being sufficient to satisfy the creditor’s claim.
The Principle of Proportionality in Enforcement Proceedings
In accordance with the Law on Enforcement and Security, the principle of proportionality, enshrined in Article 56, obliges the public enforcement officer, where several means and objects of enforcement are available, to choose the measure that is least detrimental to the enforcement debtor while still ensuring effective satisfaction of the creditor’s claim.
However, the principle of proportionality does not apply where the enforcement debtor has no other assets or income from which the claim may be satisfied, and the immovable property is the only asset against which enforcement may be carried out.
Conditions for Enforcement Against Immovable Property
The sale of immovable property is considered only when it is established that the debt cannot be collected through other means, or in situations where the amount of the debt is such that it is justified to order enforcement through multiple objects and means of enforcement. In practice, this may include the simultaneous seizure of salary, the sale of a motor vehicle, and the sale of the enforcement debtor’s immovable property. Where the debtor has no regular income or other enforceable assets, immovable property may become the only means of satisfying the creditor’s claim. In such cases, the property may be sold in enforcement proceedings regardless of whether its value significantly exceeds the amount of the debt, as the law prioritizes effective satisfaction of the creditor’s claim in the absence of alternative means of recovery. In this regard, it should not be overlooked that under Article 55 of the Law on Enforcement and Security, the subject of enforcement for the purpose of collecting a monetary claim may not be the debtor’s sole immovable property in his or her exclusive ownership that serves to meet basic housing needs.
