The consternation of the Romanian enforcement agents

A seminar organised by the Council of Europe

In the framework of its programme of cooperation with the Romanian Ministry of Justice, the Council of Europe organised a seminar on the enforcement of legal decisions relating to civil and commercial matters on the 19th and 20th of November 2003 in Sibiu, at the very heart of Transylvania.
 
This seminar was another opportunity for the UIHJ to collaborate with the Council of Europe through its members Mathieu Chardon and Armando Oliveira, who are also experts at the Council of Europe. The mission was organised by Mr Philippe Biju-Duval, member of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe were Mrs Geneviève Fiala (Switzerland), Mr Mathieu Chardon (France) and Mr Armando Oliveira (Portugal).

Banking agents with a very particular status

In the course of this seminar, the experts of the Council of Europe and the members of the UIHJ learnt of the existence of banking agents charged with enforcing the legal decisions pronounced for the profit of the banks that employ them. Effectively Romanian law authorises banks entrust to certain employees the possibility of using excessive enforcement measures to recover the sums owed to them by their debtors.

These dispositions appear to go against the principles of neutrality and independence which are the fundamental traits of agents charged with enforcing legal decisions in Europe.

We should remember that the Recommendation Rec(2003)17 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted on the 9th of September 2003 establishes the minimal standards concerning the enforcement of legal decisions. This recommendation IV.4 states that enforcement agents must be objective in their relations with the parties concerned. In an explicative note, the Council of Europe indicated that, in member States in which the enforcement agents serve as an intermediary between the parties, the States are also invited, according to Principle IV.4. to ensure that these agents are professional in their relations with the parties and do not act in a non-objective manner. We can legitimately pose the question as to how these demands can be fulfilled when the enforcement agent is employed by the creditor and is not an independent professional.

Considerable prejudice

The UIHJ can but deplore the existence of these banker agents which establishes an undeniable ‘two-speed' justice by providing banks with the means that a simple citizen does not have at his disposal, and is thereby detrimental to the Romanian enforcement agents. Let us hope that the Romanian State will rapidly take the necessary steps to rectify this disturbing situation for the constitutional state, three years before the entry of Romania into the European Union.