Case relevance
Banks or debt collection agencies initiate legal actions even when their claims are time-barred, and debtors may end up paying or acknowledging the debt without knowing that the statute of limitation has expired. Partial payment or acknowledgment of the debt by signing a payment rescheduling agreement interrupts the statute of limitations, starting a new term for the statute of limitation. Furthermore, failing to file a challenge against the enforcement procedure at the first opportunity when the statute of limitations can be invoked eliminates the debtor’s chance to be relieved of the debt, given the provisions of Article 713 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that the same party cannot file a new challenge for reasons that existed at the time of the first objection.
It is crucial for anyone pursued for unpaid debts under a credit contract to consult a lawyer immediately after receiving the enforcement summons. The deadline for filing an objection to enforcement is 15 days from the communication of the enforcement document, making timely action essential. Additionally, the individual must ensure that any enforcement documents are sent to the correct address or that they have access to the communications, as filing an objection after the legal deadline results in its automatic rejection as late, without further analysis.
Summary of the Case
The claimant, represented by a litigation lawyer from Brisc Legal Cluj, entered into an unsecured credit contract with ING Bank in 2010 as a borrower.
In 2021, the assignor ING Bank signed a debt assignment agreement with a debt collection agency, transferring the claimant’s unperforming credit contract.
In 2022, the debt collection agency Invest Capital initiated enforcement proceedings against the claimant based on the enforceable title represented by the credit contract.
Litigation at the Dej Court
Through the enforcement objection, the claimant, represented by an enforcement litigation lawyer from Cluj, requested:
- Recognition of the statute of limitations for enforcing the debt under the credit contract
- Annulment of the enforcement order and all enforcement acts in the execution file
- Annulment of the enforcement itself due to the expiration of the statute of limitations
- Reimbursement of all legal costs incurred
To support these requests, the Brisc Legal law firm in Cluj argued that there had been no action interrupting the statute of limitations before the enforcement file was opened. The lawyer pointed out to the court that no payment had been made toward the creditor within the three years prior to filing the enforcement request. They also argued that before the enforcement began, there had been no voluntary execution of the obligation stated in the enforceable title or acknowledgment of the debt in any other form as required by law.
Brisc Legal further contended that the creditor’s inactivity and failure to file for enforcement within three years from the declaration of early maturity of the debtor’s credit—or, at the latest, from the assignment of the claim if the assignee creditor was still within the statute of limitations—led to the expiration of the right to enforce the debt.
The creditor filed a response, arguing that as long as the case documents showed that the debt was not fully paid, they were entitled to initiate enforcement for the remaining amount.
Court Decision
The Dej Court ruled in favor of the claimant, accepting the arguments presented by the Brisc Legal team and recognizing that the right to enforce the debt had expired.
Adopting the specialized enforcement lawyers’ reasoning, the court determined that the statute of limitations began in 2012 when the bank declared the loan due and payable and expired three years later, in 2015. However, the enforcement request was filed with the bailiff only in 2022.
Ultimately, the court found that no interruptive act had occurred to restart the statute of limitations period.