Strict piloting to avoid "Civil Judgment Enforcement Office" transforming into a "service"

Discussing at the Hall this morning about the draft Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement (amended), National Assembly Deputy Nguyen Huu Thong (Lam Dong) highly appreciated the direction of expanding the scope of regulation, but noted the need to be cautious with the model of socialized judgment enforcement, ensuring to avoid overlapping jurisdiction and maintaining the strictness of judgments.

At the discussion session, National Assembly Deputy Nguyen Huu Thong expressed his agreement with many contents in the Government's Submission and the Verification Report of the Committee on Law and Justice , especially on the necessity of comprehensively amending the 2008 Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, which was amended and supplemented in 2014.

National Assembly Delegate Nguyen Huu Thong ( Lam Dong ) speaks. Photo: Quang Khanh

According to the delegate, this draft has a broader scope of regulation, covering the enforcement of judgments and decisions of the Court, the Procuracy, investigation agencies, commercial arbitration, the national competition agency and administrative decisions related to property. This approach is consistent with current reality when civil, economic and commercial judgments are increasingly diverse and have international elements.

Clarifying the model of "Civil Enforcement Office"

A notable new point is the redesign of the civil judgment enforcement system, clearly separating the state management agency and the enforcement agency. The draft adds the model of "Civil Judgment Enforcement Office" and the title of "Bailiff", who can organize the enforcement of judgments according to contracts, similar to the bailiff model in many countries.

National Assembly Deputy Nguyen Huu Thong commented that this is a step in the right direction, demonstrating the trend of socializing the enforcement of judgments, helping to reduce the burden on state agencies and expand the choices for people. However, if the scope, authority, responsibility and relationship with state enforcement agencies are not clearly defined, this model can lead to risks of abuse of power, conflicts of interest or become a "conditional enforcement service".

“I propose that the pilot should only be conducted on a small scale, with strict control mechanisms by the Ministry of Justice and the People's Procuracy, and at the same time clearly stipulate ethical and professional standards and compensation responsibilities of the Bailiff when causing damage to the parties,” said delegate Nguyen Huu Thong.

Avoid "choosing a favorable place" when allowing self-selection of enforcement agencies

Regarding the rights and obligations of the judgment debtor and the judgment debtor, the draft allows both parties to choose a civil judgment enforcement agency or a civil judgment enforcement office to enforce the judgment.

View of the meeting. Photo: Pham Thang

Delegate Nguyen Huu Thong assessed this as a progressive policy, helping people to be more proactive and flexible, but also posing potential risks regarding authority.

“When both the person being executed and the person having to execute the judgment have the right to choose, the same judgment can be executed by two different entities. This reality easily leads to the situation of “choosing the most advantageous place”, or unhealthy competition between agencies and offices executing the judgment, distorting the execution process, causing conflicts, duplication, or prolonging the case due to jurisdictional disputes. This mechanism invisibly disrupts the system, reduces the legal effect of the judgment and makes it difficult for the People's Procuracy to supervise”.

Therefore, National Assembly Deputy Nguyen Huu Thong said that the draft needs to clearly stipulate the principle: a judgment, at a time, can only be enforced by a single entity. At the same time, it is necessary to limit the scope of selection according to the place of residence, the place of property or the place where the judgment was issued, and establish a public online registration and monitoring mechanism to ensure transparency and avoid negativity.

Increasing the Court's responsibility in enforcing judgments

Regarding the responsibilities of the Court and the agency issuing the judgment, delegate Nguyen Huu Thong pointed out that in reality, there are still many unclear judgments that are difficult to enforce, while the sending of judgments and responses to requests from the enforcement agency are still slow. This draft has added a provision of a maximum time limit of 20 days (or 30 days for complicated cases) for the agency issuing the judgment to correct, amend, and explain the content upon receiving the request. This is a positive step forward, but it is necessary to specify sanctions for handling responsibilities in cases of delay or lack of cooperation.

Delegates attending the meeting. Photo: Quang Khanh

“It is recommended that the Drafting Committee specify more sanctions for handling responsibilities, clarify disciplinary or administrative measures for cases of slow response or failure to respond to requests and recommendations of enforcement agencies; attach responsibility to the head and supplement the supervisory role of the People's Procuracy, in order to enhance bindingness, ensure connectivity between judicial agencies and effective enforcement of judgments in practice,” delegate Nguyen Huu Thong proposed.

Source: https://daibieunhandan.vn/thi-diem-chat-che-tranh-de-van-phong-thi-hanh-an-dan-su-bien-tuong-thanh-dich-vu-10395184.html