Importance of the Case
Provisional suspension of enforcement is essential for protecting the debtor’s rights. It prevents irreversible harm while the suspension request is pending within the enforcement objection. This temporary measure balances the creditor’s right to collect the debt with the debtor’s right to a fair process, avoiding enforcement steps that could later be deemed premature or unlawful.
Case Summary
The debtor—a joint stock company with a board of directors, represented by Brisc Legal lawyers—was subject to enforcement proceedings by a creditor company based on a promissory note (bill of exchange). Enforcement involved freezing and seizing the debtor’s assets.
Litigation at Gherla District Court
The debtor, through Brisc Legal counsel, requested a court-ordered provisional suspension of enforcement, pending resolution of the enforcement objection. A motion and an objection were filed under both Article 62 of Law no. 58/1934 and Article 719(1) of the Civil Procedure Code.
To justify the suspension, the debtor demonstrated both urgency and prima facie legal right, and provided the legally required bail.
- Urgency: The debtor argued that enforcement had already led to seizure of company vehicles, with risk of seizure extending to agricultural machinery—threatening complete operational shutdown. The freeze on bank funds also caused irreparable harm by halting payment capability.
- Prima facie right: Debtor’s accountants showed that the only debt claimed had been fully paid two years earlier, indicating that the promissory note lacked validity. Further, the note had been issued by a former board president who exceeded his authority; it was not validly authorized by the company.
The Gherla District Court, finding these arguments credible, granted the provisional suspension. The court held that if the debtor’s claims are accurate—specifically that the underlying obligation never existed or was unauthorized—the sudden loss of the funds would cause undue harm, justifying suspension.