Does article 697, paragraph (2) of the Romanian Civil procedure code institute a new hypothesis as to the intervention of obsolescence of forced execution?

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide an answer to the question of whether the provisions of article 697, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Code institute a new case wherein the obsolescence of forced execution may intervene.

Unlike the former civil procedure code, the new regulation of forced execution obsolescence imposes, as an essential premise for the triggering of lapse of the six months obsolescence term, the existence of a written request by the officer of the court addressed to the creditor, in view of performing an action or a intercession required by forced execution. In our opinion, the provisions of said article 697, paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Code do not institute a new case wherein the obsolescence of forced execution may intervene by merely regulates the situation of such obsolescence term lapse.

For the obsolescence term to start lapsing, it is necessary for an officer of the court to ask the creditor to carry-out an action or an intercession. In the absence of such intercession, the obsolescence term does not lapse.

By way of consequence, article 697, (paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Code does not determine an additional case wherein obsolescence may occur.

For the obsolescence term to start lapsing, it is necessary for an officer of the court to ask the creditor to carry-out an action or an intercession. In the absence of such intercession, the obsolescence term does not lapse.

By way of consequence, article 697, (paragraph (2) of the Civil Procedure Code does not determine an additional case wherein obsolescence may occur.