The Government of the Republic of Serbia has submitted to legislative procedure a draft law amending the Law on Enforcement and Security (“Law”), introducing for the first time the possibility of protecting the debtor’s sole real estate from forced sale in enforcement proceedings. Although the proposed amendments are presented as a step toward greater social justice and safeguarding citizens’ basic housing rights, the conditions for invoking such protection are considered highly restrictive.
Under the proposed Article 151b of the Law, real estate property shall not be subject to enforcement if all of the following conditions are cumulatively met:
- The property is the only real estate owned by the enforcement debtor;
- The enforcement debtor has had registered residence at the property for at least five years prior to the filing of the enforcement motion, and the address has not been deactivated;
- The property has a surface area not exceeding 60 square meters;
- If the principal claim being enforced does not exceed half of the market value of the real estate, as determined in accordance with the act of the local self-government unit,
- Within the three years preceding the filing of the enforcement motion, the enforcement debtor has not sold or gifted another real estate, waived inheritance rights to immovable property, or entered into a lifetime support agreement.
The draft Law stipulates that the competent court shall determine ex officio whether the above conditions are met when reviewing the enforcement motion. If the property is designated as the subject of enforcement, the court shall assess whether the requirements of Article 151b are fulfilled. If so, the court shall reject the enforcement motion. The enforcement debtor may file a legal remedy against the enforcement decision on the grounds of incorrect application of Article 151b.
Although the legislative intent is to protect citizens from losing their homes due to minor debts, legal experts warn that the strict criteria will likely exclude many debtors from protection. The application of the provision is particularly problematic in cases involving mortgage loans, where debtors have already consented to enforcement through a mortgage instrument. It remains unclear whether courts will apply the law rigidly or take into account broader social circumstances. For protection to be effective, consistent judicial practice and further refinement through public consultation will be necessary.
Recent Comments