Search

The case law of the European Court of Justice (CJEU), despite confirming in theory the importance of res judicata, has regularly affirmed the need to overcome stability of national judges’ opinions formally qualified as final if that is needed to ensure effective consumers protection. Against this scenario, the Italian Supreme Court (Cass., sez. un. 6 April 2023, n. 9479), seems to have initiated a dialogue with the CJEU, mainly aimed at giving actuation of the principles enacted by the European Court but nevertheless with some apparent revindications of autonomy. The variety of solutions adopted by national judges and the creative effort of the Italian Supreme Court seem to confirm that an intervention by European or national legislators could be required at this point on the matter.

This publication is dedicated specifically to local taxes, given their importance for the actual achievement of local self-government in the Republic of Bulgaria. Here, financial decentralisation is understood as a way to strengthen the legal role and economic power of local government. An expression of financial decentralisation de lege lata are the tourist tax and the patent tax.

In-depth analysis of the role technology plays in establishing a recoverer-centric approach to the enforcement process is provided in this academic research study. This paper examines the potential for technological improvements to enable a more effective and efficient enforcement process while taking into account the necessity of prioritising the rights of recoverers and the developing nature of enforcement proceedings. The enforcement process can be brought closer to basic ideas of fairness and equity by adopting a recoverer-centric strategy that emphasises restoring the rights of recoverers rather than only focusing on the debtor. This study uses a thorough, multifaceted methodology that includes legal analysis, case studies, and comparisons of other jurisdictions’ enforcement practises. It also examines the potential of technical advancements like automation, data analytics, and digital platforms to optimise and streamline the enforcement process. The study assesses how technology affects legal frameworks that control enforcement practises and its contribution to harmonising enforcement practises at the national and worldwide levels. This study provides important insights into the benefits and difficulties of incorporating technology into the recoverer-centric enforcement process through a thorough investigation of relevant literature and empirical evidence. It also looks into how technology might affect the standard, effectiveness, and efficiency of the enforcement process, paying special attention to how it might improve the enforceability of judgements made by courts and other competent bodies

This publication is dedicated specifically to local taxes, given their importance for the actual achievement of local self-government in the Republic of Bulgaria. Here, financial decentralization is understood as a way to strengthen the legal role and economic power of local government. An expression of financial decentralization de lege lata are the tourist tax and the patent tax. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital assets are becoming increasingly important in today’s society. Crypto currencies and crypto-tokens are considered as property by market participants and, more recently, by the courts. Recognition of the economic value of digital assets has also raised the issue of the possibility of forced execution on this subject – matter. As of 2020, digital property in the Republic of Serbia is regulated by a special law, including the collection of claims secured by digital assets. However, for the execution of unsecured claims on digital assets, the legislator refers to the general rules of the Law on Enforcement and Security. Such a legislative approach raises numerous dilemmas. It remains unclear: which enforceable title can be used as a basis for execution against digital assets; what kind of claims can be settled in this way; how the creditor has to specify the subject – matter of the enforcement; how to prevent the debtor from disposing of digital assets despite the commencement of enforcement procedure; how to secure the cooperation of debtors as well as third parties (i.e. custodians) in terms of information disclosure, transfer of private key etc. The very nature of crypto assets implies decentralisation, volatility and the ability to vanish (“disappearability”). These inherent characteristics make cryptoassets the challenging subject for enforcement. Accordingly the legal rules in this case should be fine-tuned in a way that is to a reasonable extent creditor-friendly in terms of efficiency, without neglecting the appropriate balance with the principle of proportionality in enforcement, as well as the compliance of enforcement agents’ actions with fundamental rights and ethical principles, such as the protection of privacy etc. Digital assets can easily be transferred – “in the blink of an eye” – from one account to another, from an online wallet to an offline wallet, from one owner to another or (divided into smaller parts) to multiple owners, from one digital assets to another, from one jurisdiction to several etc., which makes the enforcement process extremely complex and, in some cases, even impossible. Therefore, enforcement procedure on digital assets must be particularly urgent. In this context, it is common for the creditor to request some form of interim measure – a pre-judgment attachment of digital assets – which the court should decide on in a short period of time. Ideally, this measure should have global effect, not limited to a single state or jurisdiction. In legal literature, such a measure is generally referred to as a “worldwide freezing order”, which is intended to be universally enforceable without prior recognition by national courts. In addition, the law should allow the creditor to seek an injunction in respect of specific digital assets without identifying the holder(s) – in relation to unknown person(s). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Digital assets are becoming increasingly important in today's society. Crypto currencies and crypto-tokens are considered as property by market participants and, more recently, by the courts. Recognition of the economic value of digital assets has also raised the issue of the possibility of forced execution on this subject - matter. As of 2020, digital property in the Republic of Serbia is regulated by a special law, including the collection of claims secured by digital assets. However, for the execution of unsecured claims on digital assets, the legislator refers to the general rules of the Law on Enforcement and Security. Such a legislative approach raises numerous dilemmas. It remains unclear: which enforceable title can be used as a basis for execution against digital assets; what kind of claims can be settled in this way; how the creditor has to specify the subject - matter of the enforcement; how to prevent the debtor from disposing of digital assets despite the commencement of enforcement procedure; how to secure the cooperation of debtors as well as third parties (i.e. custodians) in terms of information disclosure, transfer of private key etc. The very nature of crypto assets implies decentralisation, volatility and the ability to vanish ("disappearability"). These inherent characteristics make cryptoassets the challenging subject for enforcement. Accordingly the legal rules in this case should be fine-tuned in a way that is to a reasonable extent creditor-friendly in terms of efficiency, without neglecting the appropriate balance with the principle of proportionality in enforcement, as well as the compliance of enforcement agents' actions with fundamental rights and ethical principles, such as the protection of privacy etc. Digital assets can easily be transferred - "in the blink of an eye" - from one account to another, from an online wallet to an offline wallet, from one owner to another or (divided into smaller parts) to multiple owners, from one digital assets to another, from one jurisdiction to several etc., which makes the enforcement process extremely complex and, in some cases, even impossible. Therefore, enforcement procedure on digital assets must be particularly urgent. In this context, it is common for the creditor to request some form of interim measure - a pre-judgment attachment of digital assets - which the court should decide on in a short period of time. Ideally, this measure should have global effect, not limited to a single state or jurisdiction. In legal literature, such a measure is generally referred to as a "worldwide freezing order", which is intended to be universally enforceable without prior recognition by national courts. In addition, the law should allow the creditor to seek an injunction in respect of specific digital assets without identifying the holder(s) - in relation to unknown person(s).

The enforcement procedure is one of the weakest links in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s judiciary, due to which the work of the judiciary is considered particularly ineffective, and one of the biggest challenges is the inadequate legislative framework. For the above reason, the reform of the enforcement procedure is one of the most important areas in the process of implementing the reform of the legal system of BiH. The aim of this work is to discuss and analyze the novelties that need to be included in the Law on Enforcement Procedures with regard to enforcement procedure on immovable property, in order to ensure better efficiency of the procedure in this subject of enforcement, but also to harmonize the provisions of the Law with human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of BiH and European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The first part presents the novelties proposed in the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Enforcement Procedure, which were critically reviewed. In the second part of the paper, the author made other proposals for supplementing the provisions in the enforcement procedure on immovable property, which had not been considered by the working group for drafting the Law on Amendments to the Law on Enforcement Procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Law Faculty of the University of Rijeka / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci is the property of Pravni fakultet Sveucilista u Rijeci and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Since 2011, the European Union's (EU) free trade agreements (FTAs) include a Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter which provides for environmental and labour commitments. Nevertheless, the ratification and implementation of these commitments remain insufficient. It is therefore essential to analyse whether the EU has become more ambitious in enforcing the TSD chapter. To analyse the chapter's enforceability, the EU's FTAs with South Korea, Canada and Japan have been compared. The comparative analysis was based on three elements: the labour and environmental commitments, institutional mechanisms and the enforcement procedure. Concerning the latter, the ongoing EU-Korea dispute settlement case over workers' rights in South Korea is the leading example. Until the Commission reveals more assertive enforcement plans, it can be said that the EU has not become more ambitious in enforcing its TSD chapter. Since no major changes were detected in the comparative analysis, several interviewees proposed enforcement mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many situations, the enforcement procedure implies that in order to meet the purpose consisting in the concrete satisfaction of the rights included in the executory title, other social values must be defeated. With reference to the protection of the residence inviolability, the article analyzes the guarantees provided by the current regulations of the Civil Procedure Code in connection with the penetration of the bailiff in the domicile, residence or headquarters of a person, in order to gain access to the debtor's assets or to identify them. The scope of the provisions laid down in art. 680 and 681 of the Civil Procedure Code is being evaluated, by taking into consideration the distinction between the situation in which enforcement is initiated under an enforceable title represented by a court decision, respectively that in which the title is a non jurisdictional one, as well as between the case where the space in which the access must be made belongs to the debtor or is the domicile, residence or headquarters or place of work of another person.

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Progress. Journal of Young Researchers is the property of University of Gdansk / Uniwersytet Gdanskim and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Prior to the establishment of the private enforcement system in the Republic of North Macedonia, a number of problems related to the efficiency of the enforcement system, for which the basic courts were competent, were evident. In order to overcome the problems of this system with special emphasis on the duration and overload of courts with cases, the concept of private enforcement was introduced. This solution of the legislator brought with it a series of reactions in the public, especially when it comes to the complete privatization of the enforcement procedure that our country adopted. The attitude of the Ministry of Justice of the RNM regarding the functioning of the private enforcement system is quite positive, while on the other hand citizens express dissatisfaction with the private form of enforcement. Citizens are less likely to go to a court for a decision on legal remedies, as the court has jurisdiction to decide on them. Taking into consideration the abovementioned issue, this paper attempts to analyze the enforcement system in the RNM, by presenting the efforts of our country to create a legal framework for efficient enforcement procedures, as well as presenting the experiences and attitudes of the RNM citizens on their perceptions about the current enforcement system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Godišnjak Pravnog Fakulteta u Sarajevu is the property of Godisnjak Pravnog Fakulteta u Sarajevu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Legal Thought / Pravna Misao is the property of Legal Thought / Pravna Misao and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Securing a favourable award from a foreign or domestic arbitral court proves to be in many cases only half the battle. As a rule, Romanian law and courts acknowledge the final, binding and enforceable nature of arbitration awards and state the principle that arbitration awards shall be freely implemented by parties. However, there are instances where the unsuccessful party does not voluntarily perform the obligations arising from the arbitral award. In these cases, before incurring legal expenses on formal enforcement procedures, it is worth attempting several informal or indirect means of persuading the other party to honour its duties. If the opposing party still refuses to comply with the award, one may resort to an ordinary enforcement procedure. In Romania, enforcement procedures may be conducted by judicial executors only after the arbitral award is rendered enforceable by a domestic court of law. As in most developed states, the vast majority of Romanian courts have enforced both domestic and foreign arbitral awards. Although there are certain instances when arbitral awards have been denied enforcement, these are the exception rather than the rule because under Romanian law the right of refusal to comply with the arbitral award shall be exerted only through an action of annulment for limited reasons.

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Anales de Derecho is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article raises the issue of compatibility of the amendments of the rules for enforcement sale of real property for the satisfaction of monetary claims with the concept of the right of pre-emption. Linguistic error in the amendments, where one word (conjunction) was dropped, has completely changed the effect and meaning of the right of pre-emption. Such an error cannot be deemed as irrelevant or harmless, not only because it cannot be reconciled with the overall enforcement framework, but also because it contradicts other regulations granting the right of pre-emption. Contradictions within the legal system open the door for legal uncertainty. It is the duty of legislature to avoid such contradictions. Equally, it is the duty of academia to raise such issues and initiate necessary reforms.

The paper examines set of problems regarding respondent's right to offer alternative performance (substitution right) in present Serbian civil procedure. It is evident that this institute has not caused greater interest of theory, although plenty of complex problems arises. Present conception of procedural substitution right which was introduced some ten years ago could be regarded as successful, as it is widens up disponsible rights of litigants. The possibility of establishing procedural substitution right is not attached to in rem claims any more. Statement could be made regarding any non pecuniary claim. Substitution right is also broadened, because respondent could be entitled on any performance, not just payment. However, solution which limits establishing procedural substitution right only in first instance procedure is retained without of particular justification. Paper examines also execution procedure regarding enforcement of judgment consisting the substitution right, as it is fundamentally different in contrast to regulation in contract law and civil procedure, especially in matter of determination of time frame in which debtor can exercise his substitution right This solution could not be regarded as successful, as it open door to abuse of procedural rights harming debtor. Questions regarding court s duty to clarify nature of claimant s statement is also examined. Delivery of goods and payment could be regarded as joinder of claims, but it could also mean in rem claim and statement of substitution right. When needed, court is obliged to clarify statements. At the end, other issues beside quoted are discussed.

The provision of Article 97 paragraph 6 of the Law on Enforcement and Security, Official Gazette of RS, no. 31/11, 99/11, 109/13, provides that the immovable property of the enforcement debtor, after two failed public auctions, may be sold without limiting the minimum price. The Croatian Law contained a provision with the same substance. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, acting on constitutional petitions, proclaimed that rigid application of the Croatian provision had violated debtor's right on fair trail. Author will compare standpoint of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia with standpoints of the highest Serbian judicial instances regarding mentioned provision of Serbian law. This stand of domestic courts, as well as the stand of the Croatian Constitutional Court is based on the prohibition of disposals of parties that are contrary to enforceable statutes and rules of decency. The legal solution, which provides that immovable property in the enforcement proceedings be sold without limitation of minimum prices in Croatia has been abandoned. The stands of the highest courts of the Republic of Serbia, as well as the Croatian example show the manner in which mentioned provision of Serbian law should be interpreted, but also the direction in which it should be changed.

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Legal Thought / Pravna Misao is the property of Legal Thought / Pravna Misao and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article reviews the recognition and enforcement procedure adopted in the Brussels I bis Regulation, including the much-debated abolition of intermediary exequatur proceedings. It examines the new responsibilities of enforcement organs and discusses some of the doctrinal concerns in this regard. The article then underlines the new regime's potential flaws with respect to both the debtor's and the creditor's rights during enforcement. Such shortcomings include the problematic discretion of Member States either to delay the satisfaction of the creditor's claim well beyond the time limits formerly set in Brussels I, or to impose irreversible enforcement measures much sooner than the debtor's rights of defence previously allowed. Overall, this analysis seeks to show that the optimistic goals of the Brussels I reform - some of them based on questionable assumptions - are hardly fulfilled by the final Recast. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amendments brought to the new Civil Procedure Code by the Law No 138/2014, especially in the matter of enforcement, have produced significant mutations in the matter of administrative disputes as well. In the context of the amending provisions brought to the Law on administrative disputes No 554/2004 by the Law No 138/2014, this study intends to make an analysis of the judicial remedies that may be exercised against the judgments delivered by the background courts in matters of administrative disputes, as well as an analysis of the procedure of enforcement of the final judgments, delivered by these courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article raises the issue of compatibility of the amendments of the rules for enforcement sale of real property for the satisfaction of monetary claims with the concept of the right of pre-emption. Linguistic error in the amendments, where one word (conjunction) was dropped, has completely changed the effect and meaning of the right of pre-emption. Such an error cannot be deemed as irrelevant or harmless, not only because it cannot be reconciled with the overall enforcement framework, but also because it contradicts other regulations granting the right of pre-emption. Contradictions within the legal system open the door for legal uncertainty. It is the duty of legislature to avoid such contradictions. Equally, it is the duty of academia to raise such issues and initiate necessary reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines set of problems regarding respondent's right to offer alternative performance (substitution right) in present Serbian civil procedure. It is evident that this institute has not caused greater interest of theory, although plenty of complex problems arises. Present conception of procedural substitution right which was introduced so me ten years ago could be regarded as successful, as it is widens up disponsible rights of litigants. The possibility of establishing procedural substitution right is not attached to in rem claims any more. Statement could be made regarding any non pecuniary claim. Substitution right is also broadened, because respondent could be entitled on any performance, not just payment. However, solution which limits establishing procedural substitution right only in first instance procedure is retained without of particu- lar justification. Paper examines also execution procedure regarding enforcement of judgment consisting the substitution right, as it is fundamentally different in contrast to regulation in contract la w and civil procedure, especially in matter of determination of time frame in which debtor can exercise his substitution right This solution could not be regarded as successful, as it open door to abuse of procedural rights harming debt or. Questions regarding court s duty to clarify nature of claimant s statement is also examined . Delivery of goods and payment could be regarded as joinder of claims, but it could also mean in rem claim and statement of substitution right. When need ed, court is obliged to clarify statements. At the end, other issues beside quoted are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I have tried to present some aspects concerning the special means of challenging the enforcement procedure, provided by art. 62 - 63 of the Law no. 58/1938 on the bills of exchange and the promissory notes. These articles contain special rules on the object of the contestation/opposition, the term in which this means of challenging the enforcement [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Article presents a study of opportunities and problems related to the procedural actions taken by bailiffs electronically. In the opinion of the authors, the digitalisation of the enforcement procedure seeks to ensure the maximum use of electronic documents: enforcement and procedural documents should function only in the electronic format and thereby should create an effective, transparent and easily accessible information system of electronic enforcement files, which will not only increase the effectiveness of performance of bailiffs and save costs, but will also ensure the protection of the rights of claimants and debtors in enforcement proceedings through reliable and prompt service of procedural documents by electronic means, access to information about the course of the enforcement proceedings by using information technologies, and transfer of certain procedural actions taken by bailiffs into the electronic environment. Section one of the Article discusses the EU regulation in the area of unification and digitalisation of the enforcement procedure. Section two deals with the possibilities of issuing electronic enforcement orders, issuance of an enforcement order, technical measures to enable bailiffs access the information systems of the institutions issuing enforcement orders by safe electronic channels and thereby electronic enforcement orders would be transferred from the issuing institution to bailiffs electronically, without using any hard copy enforcement orders. In the opinion of the authors, considering that the majority of enforcement orders are issued by courts, it would be expedient, first of all, to take advantage of the existing information system LITEKO, making it possible to keep not only court judgments but also enforcement orders there as well as providing bailiffs with technical possibilities of access to the LITEKO system and acceptance of the electronic enforcement orders from the system. A similar principle should be followed for designing integrated information systems of bailiffs and other institutions that issue enforcement orders. Section three focuses on the main procedural documents -- arrangements given by bailiffs and property attachment deeds -- and on their electronic service on the participants involved in the enforcement procedure. The last section of the Article offers a study of the measures to secure the rights of participants of the enforcement procedure, namely access of the participants of the enforcement procedure to the enforcement file, possibilities for courts to obtain electronic enforcement files promptly, etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Compulsory Execution / Revista Română de Executare Silită is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Romanian Review of Private Law / Revista Română de Drept Privat is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)