Ombudsman Takes Stand on Foreclosure Procedure - Névtelen webhely
Ombudsman Takes Stand on Foreclosure Procedure
The missed foreclosure procedure whereby the foreclosure objection was not submitted to the court by the predefined deadline caused an impropriety in relation to the requirement of legal certainty and the right to fair administration of official matters, as well as to the right to legal remedy, as was established by Ombudsman Dr Ákos Kozma in his inquiry.
The complainant who turned to the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights as the party requesting foreclosure objected to the procedural actions performed by the bailiff acting in his case. The complainant contacted the bailiff’s office in person in connection with the procedural actions mentioned above and he submitted a complaint to the Hungarian Chamber of Court Bailiffs (MBVK). In this report, he complained that the bailiff had not notified him of the date and time of the foreclosure, the movables were seized in 10 minutes, which suggests that the job was not performed thoroughly and with due care, and the foreclosure records were not compliant with the statutory requirements either.
As the complainant received no information on the assessment of his complaint for more than four months, and as he assumed that his complaint, which qualified as a statement of objection against the foreclosure based on its content, had been sent to MBVK by the bailiff, he contacted MBVK via e-mail and asked them for information regarding his complaint. After the receipt of the letter sent by the complainant, MBVK requested the bailiff who acted in the case for information on the very same day. In its letter, MBVK requested that the binding decision assessing the objection filed by the complainant be sent over by the bailiff, and they also told the bailiff to take the necessary measures for forwarding the objection to the court, as long as they had not yet handed in the objection to the court.
In his response, the bailiff informed MBVK that he had not yet submitted the statement of objection against foreclosure, which had been handed in by the complainant as a complaint, to the court, as the complainant had not yet paid the objection duty.
In his report on case No. AJB-881/2020, Dr Ákos Kozma established that in the case of the complainant, the statement of objection against foreclosure had not been handed in to the court by the predefined deadline. The malpractice of the bailiff caused an impropriety in relation to the requirement of legal certainty and the right to fair administration of official matters, as well as to the right to legal remedy. The independent court bailiff has no discretion in deciding whether or not he will submit the objection to the court, it is his statutory obligation to forward the objection to the court by the predefined deadline, based on which it is primarily the court that is entitled to act.
The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights called the bailiff to remedy the established impropriety, to accurately observe the procedural deadlines, and to fulfil his information obligation.
For the report, please click on the following link: AJB-881/2020.