Niecelowość wszczęcia postępowania egzekucyjnego
Inexpediency of Initiating Enforcement Proceedings

Summary/Abstract: One cannot agree with the view of the Supreme Court that Art. 30 of the Act of February 28, 2018 on bailiff costs is not the basis for the court bailiff to charge an enforcement fee from the creditor in the event that enforcement proceedings are discontinued pursuant to art. 824 § 1 point 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to the submission by the creditor of an application for the initiation of enforcement proceedings after the declaration of the debtor’s bankruptcy. Acceptance by the Supreme Court that the discontinuance of enforcement proceedings pursuant to Art. 824 § 1 point 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not require the bailiff to take steps to “conduct enforcement proceedings”, it is based on the erroneous assumption that the creditor will already indicate in the application for enforcement that the debtor has been declared bankrupt by a legally valid court decision. Meanwhile, such information is not provided to the bailiff by the creditor, but is obtained by the bailiff at various stages of the enforcement proceedings already pending. Even if the information about the debtor’s bankruptcy was included in the creditor’s application for enforcement, the bailiff should charge the creditor with an enforcement fee pursuant to Art. 30 of the Act on bailiffs’ costs, because the assessment of the inappropriateness of the initiation of enforcement proceedings is carried out as at the time of its initiation.

• Details
• Contents