Institut odloga izvršbe

(magistrsko diplomsko delo)

Tajda Vrhovec (Author), Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (Mentor)

Abstract

Odlog izvršbe, kot ga ureja Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju, predstavlja zastoj in izjemo od sicer neprekinjenega izvršilnega postopka. Namen instituta odloga izvršbe je preprečevanje nesorazmernih posegov v pravice dolžnika, kar dosega tudi tako, da upošteva dolžnikov socialni položaj ali druge izjemne okoliščine, saj pravna in socialna država ne sme zanemariti njegovega varstva in dopustiti vsakršnega posega v njegove pravice (2. člen Ustave Republike Slovenije). Odlog izvršbe na predlog dolžnika lahko predstavlja ključni varovalni mehanizem dolžnika, saj omogoča začasno zadržanje izvršbe vsaj za čas, dokler se ne razreši vprašanje dopustnosti izvršbe. Zakonodajalec je v primeru odloga izvršbe na predlog dolžnika v prvem odstavku 71. člena ZIZ uzakonil izredno stroge pogoje za odlog, predvsem v luči zagotavljanja upnikove pravice do sodnega varstva in preprečevanja morebitnih dolžnikovih zlorab. V 4. točki drugega odstavka 71. člena ZIZ je predvidena možnost odloga izvršbe na podlagi drugih posebno upravičenih razlogov, ki dolžniku v težki življenjski situaciji omogoča doseči odlog izvršbe, brez izpolnjevanja strogih pogojev iz prvega odstavka 71. člena ZIZ. Vendar pa je ta možnost dolžniku omejena – odlog je mogoče odobriti le enkrat in za največ tri mesece. Zaradi tega dolžnik v praksi težko doseže dejansko izboljšanje svojih okoliščin v takšnem časovnem okviru. Po eni strani je ključni namen izvršilnega postopka zagotoviti poplačilo upnikovih terjatev, medtem ko po drugi strani institut odloga izvršbe varuje pravice dolžnika. Zaradi strogih zakonskih pogojev in restriktivne sodne prakse je uporaba instituta odloga izvršbe na predlog dolžnika v praksi redka, saj dolžnik izredno težko dokaže, da bi mu takojšnja izvršba, skladno z ustaljeno sodno prakso, povzročila nepopravljivo ali težko popravljivo škodo. Po drugi strani pa bi fleksibilnejša zakonska ureditev povečala upnikovo negotovost glede roka plačila terjatev. Vzpostavitev ustreznega ravnovesja pravic predstavlja za zakonodajalca poseben izziv.

Keywords

izvršilni postopek;Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju;odlog izvršbe;varstvo dolžnika;pravica do sodnega varstva;učinkovitost izvršbe;načelo sorazmernosti;dolžnikov dom;načelo pravne in socialne države;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2025
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[T. Vrhovec]
UDC:	347(043.2)
COBISS:	233290755
Views:	86
Downloads:	29
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Institution of stay of enforcement
Secondary abstract:	A stay of enforcement as regulated by the Slovenian Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ) represents a delay and an exception to an otherwise continuous enforcement procedure. Its purpose is to prevent disproportionate interference with the rights of the debtor by considering their social conditions or other exceptional circumstances, since the rule of law and the welfare state must not neglect the protection of the debtor and cannot allow just any interference with their rights (Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia). A stay of enforcement requested by the debtor serves as a safeguard mechanism, suspending enforcement until its admissibility is resolved. However, the first paragraph of Article 71 of the ZIZ enacts extremely strict legal conditions for stay of enforcement, in particular in the light of ensuring the creditor's right to judicial protection and preventing possible abuse of law by the debtor. The 4th point of the second paragraph of Article 71 of the ZIZ provides the possibility of stay of enforcement for other specific well-founded reasons, which allows the debtor in a difficult life situation to obtain a stay of enforcement without meeting the strict conditions of the first paragraph of Article 71 of the ZIZ. However, this possibility is limited for the debtor – a stay of enforcement may be granted only once and for a maximum of three months, which makes it difficult for the debtor to achieve a real improvement in their circumstances within such timeframe. On the one hand, the key purpose of enforcement proceedings is to ensure the payment of the creditor's claims, while on the other hand, the of stay of enforcement protects the rights of the debtor. Due to the strict legal conditions and restrictive case-law, debtors struggle to prove that immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm, reducing the availability of this mechanism. While a more flexible approach could enhance debtor protection, it might also increase uncertainty for creditors. Establishing an appropriate balance between the rights of creditors and debtors remains a particular challenge for the legislator.
Secondary keywords:	enforcement proceedings;Enforcement and Security Act;stay of enforcement;debtor's protection;right to effective judicial protection;effectiveness of enforcement;principle of proportionality;debtor's home;rule of law;welfare state;Univerzitetna in visokošolska dela;
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Study programme:	0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE):	1970-01-01
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages:	51 f.
ID:	26235581