Cerere de suspendare a contractului de credit și a contractului de ipotecă accesoriu, până la soluționarea acțiunii ce are ca obiect anularea contractului de credit. Inadmisibilitatea cererii de suspendare a contractului de ipotecă imobiliară
Request for suspension of the credit agreement and the accessory mortgage agreement, pending the resolution of the action aimed at annulling the credit agreement. Inadmissibility of the request for suspension of the real estate mortgage agreement

Summary/Abstract: Separate from the possibility of requesting suspension within an enforcement challenge—where both the enforcement process itself and individual enforcement acts can be contested—the legislator has also provided for the suspension of the enforceable title that serves as the basis for enforcement. This can occur within the substantive action challenging its legality when the title is represented by an authenticated document, in cases provided by law (Article 638, para. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code), or by a credit instrument or another document recognized by law as having enforceable power (Article 638, para. 1, point 4 of the Civil Procedure Code). The rationale for suspension in this situation is to prevent the damage that could be inflicted on the debtor when the enforceable title underlying the enforcement process is flawed in a way that renders it either unsuitable for enforcement or affects the existence, scope, or exigibility of the debt it establishes. While a suspension based on Article 719 of the Civil Procedure Code may cover the entire enforcement process, the suspension regulated by Article 638, para. 2 of the same code is limited to the title that is the subject of the annulment action. If an annulment request is not filed alongside the mortgage contract, the mere accessory relationship between a real estate mortgage and the secured debt is not sufficient to automatically suspend the enforcement of the mortgage contract solely as a result of suspending the credit agreement’s enforcement. This is particularly relevant given that, in principle, the lack of an enforceable nature of the credit agreement does not, by itself, prevent the enforcement of the mortgage contract—as established by Decision no. 60/2017 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, issued by the Panel for Resolving Legal Issues.

• Details
• Contents