Extinderea urmăririi silite – o executare pe cale incidentală?
Extension of legal pursuit – an incidental execution?

Summary/Abstract: The intervention of other creditors within the enforcement procedure entails as main reason their participation to the distribution of the amounts resulting from the capitalization of the debtor's assets. Secondly, the approval of the request for intervention allows the intervening creditors that hold an enforceable title to participate in the pursuit of the debtor's assets and to demand that other enforcement acts be carried out. As a rule, the pursuing creditor may not oppose a request for intervention made by another creditor, unless it proves that the intervener acted with the intention of defrauding him. The law provides the pursuing creditor with a mechanism by which he can nonetheless counteract one of the effects of the request for intervention, if it is made by an unsecured creditor; more precisely, the pursuing creditor may be preferred to the distribution if he indicates to the intervener other assets pertaining to the debtor that could be usefully pursued, asking such intervener to request the extension of the legal pursuit proceedings on these assets, provided to hold an enforceable title, respectively to advance the necessary expenses in all cases. The article analyses the institution involving the extension of legal pursuit, which appears as an incident during the enforcement proceedings initiated by the pursuer; two matters are dealt with in particular: the controversy over the category of intervening creditors who may request an extension of the legal pursuit, the thesis according to which such extension could only be ordered by a creditor holding an enforceable title being the one agreed upon; the issue concerning the conditions that ought to be met not only by the enforcement title, but also by the claim of the intervening creditor so that he may request the extension of the legal pursuit.

• Details
• Contents