Post by xyz3000 on Feb 12, 2024 9:51:16 GMT
Today the fad has accompanied judicial relations. Under the banner of speed, many legal practitioners use legal innovations to “solve” old problems that are not always suitable for modern legislation. One of these legal devices is the so-called seizure of bank accounts, which has been used in a banal and exhaustive way by judges in their eagerness to carry out the execution in any way, removing from their decisions the possible and concrete losses that an attitude of this nature can cause to the person under jurisdiction. one of the companies in which our office provides services was targeted by the capital's civil court with a judicial order that their accounts were blocked in an enforcement action filed by one of their suppliers and we only had a few days to reverse the situation.
The detail is that this company is nothing less than a Hospital and, if its accounts were to be blocked on Christmas Eve, many patients would inevitably die due to the Hospital's inability to pay doctors, buy medicines, among others. Even so, the court a quo decided to carry out the execution no matter what the cost. Now we will see, in two arguments listed below, that the judgment and the Estonia Email List option to seize bank accounts must be weighed in a more calm and authoritative way by the judge who should not be enchanted only by the quick resolution of the dispute seeking the shine of speed but rather judge with serenity, experience and common sense, preventing the judicial process from being a proliferation of conflicts, a consequence that is diametrically opposed to that which the process of pacifying disputes was created.
Argument: Execution by the least burdensome method for the debtor The first argument finds support in the Civil Procedural Statute itself, which in its article 620 provides for the principle of least onerousness, being crystal clear when specifying in its text that: “Art. 620. When the creditor can promote execution by various means, the judge will order that it be done in the least burdensome way for the debtor”. Thus, in this case, the judge must necessarily use the principle of proportionality, in its dimension of enforceability, which is known by proceduralists as the “principle of least onerousness”, aiming to prevent this Execution from sacrificing the Hospital’s assets. in such a severe way, seeking balanced execution.
The detail is that this company is nothing less than a Hospital and, if its accounts were to be blocked on Christmas Eve, many patients would inevitably die due to the Hospital's inability to pay doctors, buy medicines, among others. Even so, the court a quo decided to carry out the execution no matter what the cost. Now we will see, in two arguments listed below, that the judgment and the Estonia Email List option to seize bank accounts must be weighed in a more calm and authoritative way by the judge who should not be enchanted only by the quick resolution of the dispute seeking the shine of speed but rather judge with serenity, experience and common sense, preventing the judicial process from being a proliferation of conflicts, a consequence that is diametrically opposed to that which the process of pacifying disputes was created.
Argument: Execution by the least burdensome method for the debtor The first argument finds support in the Civil Procedural Statute itself, which in its article 620 provides for the principle of least onerousness, being crystal clear when specifying in its text that: “Art. 620. When the creditor can promote execution by various means, the judge will order that it be done in the least burdensome way for the debtor”. Thus, in this case, the judge must necessarily use the principle of proportionality, in its dimension of enforceability, which is known by proceduralists as the “principle of least onerousness”, aiming to prevent this Execution from sacrificing the Hospital’s assets. in such a severe way, seeking balanced execution.