Brisc Legal Cluj attorneys, specializing in contestations of enforcement, obtained a final court decision annuling all enforcement acts and the enforced execution itself initiated by the debt recovery company INVESTCAPITAL LTD against our client, due to the prescription of the right to request enforced execution. Moreover, our attorneys succeeded in obtaining, for our client, full recovery of all court costs.
The 3-Year Statute of Limitations for the Right to Request Enforced Execution Began Running from the Date the Credit Was Declared Due in Advance
The Dej Justice Court confirmed the argument developed by the attorneys specialized in enforcement contestations and found that the 3-year prescription period for the right to request enforced execution began running from the moment the bank declared the credit due in advance — October 31, 2012 — and it expired on October 31, 2015.
Thus, the first instance court determined that the assignment of the claim to the debt recovery company had no effect regarding the fulfillment of the prescription period; consequently, initiating enforced execution against our client on August 2, 2022 was done in violation of the provisions of Article 706 of the Civil Procedure Code concerning extinctive prescription.
Accordingly, the Dej Justice Court granted the contestation of enforcement submitted by our attorneys specialized in the prescription of the right to request enforced execution in favor of our client and ordered the annulment of all enforcement acts and of the enforced execution itself, based on the expiration of the 3-year statute of limitations. In addition, the court ordered the debt recovery company to pay the court costs and to refund the judicial stamp duty paid.
Attorney’s Fee Charged to Our Client Was Not Disproportionate, Considering the Negative Consequences of the Enforced Execution
The Cluj Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the debt recovery company and found that the first instance court’s decision to award the attorney’s fee to our client was correct, considering the efforts made and the negative consequences produced by the enforced execution (garnishment of accounts, registration of enforcement measures, etc.).
Additionally, the appellate court required the debt recovery company to pay, in favor of our client, the costs of the appeal.
Conclusion
Thanks to the work of Brisc Legal’s enforcement-contestation attorneys, our client was exonerated from the obligation to repay the amounts claimed by INVESTCAPITAL LTD, and also succeeded in recovering the court costs.