Apărările terţului poprit în validarea de poprire. Depăşirea limitelor urmăririi în cazul veniturilor băneşti. Inadmisibilitate invocării pe calea validării de poprire?
Defenses of the garnishee in validating the attachment. Exceeding the limits of the pursuit in the case of money income. Inadmissibility of invoking by way of validation of attachment?

Summary/Abstract: The article analyzes the court's reasoning in a case concerning the limits of the defenses that the third party defendant can raise in the attachment validation procedure, in relation to the limits of the enforcement court in the appeal to enforcement. In accordance with Article 790 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, the garnishee may raise against the pursuing creditor only those defenses and defenses that he could have raised against the debtor, provided that they are based on causes prior to the attachment. One of the issues at stake is whether the validation court has the power to examine the legality of the enforcement, a matter reserved, as a rule, to the appeal to enforcement. It emphasizes the dual nature of the legal relations within the attachment: the debtor is simultaneously a debtor vis-à-vis the pursuing creditor and a creditor vis-à-vis the third party, which gives rise to a third legal relationship between the pursuing creditor and the third party. The court held that the third party defendant does not have procedural standing to criticize the legality of the levy of enforcement, since as a rule it cannot challenge the enforcement and cannot set itself up as the debtor's representative through the defenses raised in the validation. Its defenses must relate exclusively to its prior legal relationship with the debtor, not to causes affecting the validity of the enforcement itself. In the case at hand, the legal issue concerned the exceeding of the maximum limit for the pursuit of income (art. 729 of the Civil Procedure Code) in the context of multiple attachments. The court held that, in the absence of an appeal to enforcement by the debtor, the garnishee cannot invoke the breach of these limits as a ground for refusing enforcement of the attachment order, being limited to its own defenses.

• Details
• Contents