Post by account_disabled on Dec 31, 2023 7:17:51 GMT
ACode of Civil Procedure all those interested or injured by the execution may appeal the execution and art. of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the conditions for the admissibility of the challenge to execution providing in para. the legal provision criticized in this case that nonpursuing creditors have the right to intervene in the forced execution in order to participate in the execution or in the distribution of the amounts obtained from the forced pursuit of the debtors assets. Next he presents aspects of the factual situation and appreciates that if it were .
Accepted that only nonpursuing creditors Country Email List became interveners could file an appeal against the execution then within days for the appeal against the execution the interested creditor should formulate and that the request for intervention be admitted which is impossible considering that the request for intervention is submitted to the bailiff who verifies it and then submits it to the enforcement court for resolution where the regularization procedure is completed the parties areresolved.
Until the court decides on the request for intervention the deadline for filing the challenge to execution expires. . Finally it requests the admission of the exception of unconstitutionality considering that in the interpretation given by the courts namely that a nonobligatory creditor can challenge the execution only after intervening in the forced execution a creditor practically has a more disadvantageous situation than the of an interested third party who can freely challenge the execution. Thus the constitutional provisions of art. since the challenge to execution cannot be exercised within the day period which will be rejected as inadmissible. . The representative of the present party requests the rejection as unfounded of the exception of unconstitutionality showing in essence that the criticized legal text does not limit the free access to justice of the nonpursuing creditor in the conditions where the law provides.
Accepted that only nonpursuing creditors Country Email List became interveners could file an appeal against the execution then within days for the appeal against the execution the interested creditor should formulate and that the request for intervention be admitted which is impossible considering that the request for intervention is submitted to the bailiff who verifies it and then submits it to the enforcement court for resolution where the regularization procedure is completed the parties areresolved.
Until the court decides on the request for intervention the deadline for filing the challenge to execution expires. . Finally it requests the admission of the exception of unconstitutionality considering that in the interpretation given by the courts namely that a nonobligatory creditor can challenge the execution only after intervening in the forced execution a creditor practically has a more disadvantageous situation than the of an interested third party who can freely challenge the execution. Thus the constitutional provisions of art. since the challenge to execution cannot be exercised within the day period which will be rejected as inadmissible. . The representative of the present party requests the rejection as unfounded of the exception of unconstitutionality showing in essence that the criticized legal text does not limit the free access to justice of the nonpursuing creditor in the conditions where the law provides.