Order No. 16027 of 2024: Registration Fees and Recovery in Third-Party Garnishment

The recent order No. 16027 of June 7, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue in the field of forced executions: the registration fees for the assignment order in cases of third-party garnishment. This legal provision provides important clarifications on the responsibilities related to the payment of these fees, especially in cases where the debt cannot be recovered.

Context of the Ruling

The central issue of the ruling concerns the identification of the party responsible for paying the registration fees in the absence of an express charge to the debtor. The Court has established that, if the assigned debt cannot be recovered, the original debtor is required to reimburse the creditor for all expenses necessary for the forced expropriation. This principle is part of the regulatory framework outlined by the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly in Articles 95, 553, and in the provisions of the Constitutional Court.

Registration fees for the assignment order – Lack of express charge – Impossibility of recovery – Party responsible for payment – Identification. In matters of third-party garnishment, the cost of registering the assignment order, in the absence of an express charge to the debtor, if, due to the insufficiency of the assigned debt, it cannot be effectively recovered, in whole or in part, from the third party, shall be borne for the difference by the original debtor, who is required to reimburse the creditor for all expenses necessary for the forced expropriation.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has significant practical implications. In fact, it clarifies that if the third party cannot repay the debt due to economic inability, the original debtor cannot evade payment of the fees. In this way, the creditor's right to be reimbursed for the expenses incurred for the forced execution is protected.

• Clarity on financial responsibilities: The ruling firmly establishes who must bear the costs in case of garnishment.
• Protection of creditor's rights: It ensures that the creditor is not burdened by unrecoverable costs.
• Solid legal references: The ruling is based on established legal principles and clear regulations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order No. 16027 of 2024 represents an important step towards clarity and certainty in the law of forced executions. It emphasizes the importance of appropriate charging of expenses and the responsibility of the original debtor, contributing to a fairer and more predictable legal system. It is essential for legal professionals and their clients to understand these dynamics to best handle situations of garnishment and debt recovery.