Welcome to the Czech Republic, which violates the UN Charter on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, its own Constitution and laws.
***
According to Czech Radio, there are approximately 4 ½ million different proceedings pending in connection with foreclosures and insolvency proceedings!!!
According to the words of the bailiffs themselves, over 80% of debts are already uncollectible. Yet not a single enforcement agency has taken advantage of the law and stopped the senseless extortion. Why? I think you know the answer: because he will not lose this money, he will immorally (in the words of the Constitutional Court) steal it from other debtors who can still pay and, most importantly, from creditors who, thanks to the tariffs of the enforcement mafia, already have 80% of the so-called uncollectable debts. Let's take an example, I'll slap now, that at the beginning there were 500 thousand people who could pay and 500 thousand who could not, the first 500 thousand therefore in this overhead bore the costs associated with the futile collection of the second half and this until they themselves could not pay and joined the second half. And over time it became a majority, with the 200,000 foreclosures bearing the costs of the futile enforcement of foreclosures on the remaining 800,000.
The foreclosure entrepreneurs don't mind, because it costs them nothing, they just charge it to others, and this way they have the hope that, if they keep up the hundreds of thousands of futile foreclosures for years and decades, someone may inherit some of those hundreds of thousands, get married, move in with relatives, who then get raided by the foreclosure gestapo for helping their neighbor (if the debtor is found to be there), or maybe win at sports. The fact that it will be the vast minority doesn't matter at all, because there will be some profit there and all the time it will be shouldered by others...
So profit without contributing to the misery of others, commercialization of law enforcement and justice - welcome to the Czech Republic, which violates the UN Charter on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, its own Constitution and laws.
Section 268(1)(E) of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates the situation where, after carrying out acts aimed at establishing the property of the debtor, no property of the debtor is found, or its value is insufficient to cover the costs of the execution, so that its execution would only lead to an increase in costs that could not be covered by the proceeds. In such a case, the executor shall submit a motion to the court to suspend the execution, stating what actions he has taken to identify the property and with what result.
The request for the enforcement officer to continue the enforcement must contain compelling reasons why the court considers that it is still possible to locate the debtor's attachable property. It is not the debtor but the bailiff who initiates the stay of execution pursuant to Article 268(1)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the provisions of Article 290(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, regulating a special reason for stopping the execution, can already be applied because the necessary time has elapsed since the date of filing the application (at least one year) and I further import that if the execution by sale of movable property fails to list any movable property that could be sold, this will be a reason for proceeding to stop the execution and not, of course, according to § 268 para. 1(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Section 52(1) of the Enforcement Code, but even under a special provision, namely Section 326A of the Code of Civil Procedure. See the decision of the Supreme Court, Case No. 20Cdo1062/2015 of 31.10.2006.
The bailiff cannot carry out the execution for an arbitrary period of time. In order to reach a legal conclusion within the meaning of Article 268(1)(e) of the Civil Procedure Code, it is "necessary for the bailiff and the beneficiary to quantify their costs", here the relevant legal provisions, in particular Decree No. 330/2001 Coll, 484/2000 Coll. and 178/1996 Coll. The fact that the debtor has no enforceable assets cannot be attributed to him; moreover, this procedure is contrary to "the doctrine that the law permits only such enforcement as serves to satisfy the creditor and should not be used where it appears that it cannot lead to that end." Any other course of action is chicanery and a manifestly purposeless exercise of execution, which is contrary to law.
According to Section 268(1)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not the debtor who initiates the proceedings but the bailiff. However, the latter not only does not, as a rule, file such an application, but also disagrees with the possible suspension of the execution and emphasises that the suspension of the execution for lack of assets should only take place after the bailiff himself has filed such an application.
This, in the broader context of the other provisions, is an erroneous and arbitrary interpretation of the law, which provides bailiffs with cover for the malicious persecution of citizens. If the bailiff's offices do not use the provisions of Section 268(1)(E) of the Code of Civil Procedure and maintain legally inconsistent executions, it is because as private businessmen, even with powers delegated by the state, they are not concerned with upholding the law, but a priori with maximizing profits and keeping the largest number of the population in their power. Of course, the debtor may also file a "Motion to Stop Execution" under other provisions and, in accordance with Section 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the court must decide to stop the execution both on motion (of any of the parties involved) and on its own motion.
Daniel Novák
11.11.2021
***
The first preparations are underway for demonstrations and the announcement of a petition that will surely be signed by hundreds of thousands of citizens. We have something to commemorate on the anniversary of 17 November, when, by „jingling the keys“, we allowed the material, psychological and often physical liquidation of largely honest and decent people, with the support of political parties that even the Communists did not allow. They are being liquidated in no small part by criminals with powers greater than those of judges and police combined.
Citizens have every right to defend the Constitution of the Czech Republic and their fundamental human rights using Article 23.
Jan Šinágl, 15.11.2021
Read more...