Mistaken enforceability confirmation: contact the title court and stop enforcement

Section 7(1) EO requires a specific enforcement title. The entitled and obligated persons, the subject, type, scope and time of the obligation or prohibition must be apparent from it. Under section 7(2) EO, enforcement may also be authorised only after the claim is due and any performance period specified in the title has expired.

The enforceability confirmation addresses these conditions. It answers a different question from the substantive merits of the original claim. A debtor can therefore challenge an error in the confirmation without reopening the entire dispute that led to the title in this application.

The title and confirmation must be read within the same file. If the parties, claim, due date or performance period do not match, the discrepancy should be recorded precisely. A general view that the judicial auction is economically excessive is not the same as proof of an error in the confirmation.

Under section 7(3) EO, the court that issued an unlawful or mistaken enforceability confirmation revokes it by order, either on its own initiative or on an application by a participant. The order must be served on all participants. The relevant court is therefore generally the title court, not automatically the enforcement court conducting the sale.

Section 7(4) EO provides a special rule for certain enforcement titles from the administrative sphere. Where the confirmation concerns a title listed in section 1 no. 13 EO or section 3(2) VVG, the application must be filed with the authority from which the title originated. The origin of the title must therefore be established before filing.

The enforcement court remains important for the sale and related applications. It is unsafe, however, to infer jurisdiction merely from the location of the property. The title, confirmation, issuing body and enforcement file must be considered together.

A well-founded application identifies the specific discrepancy. First review the parties, obligation, amount or scope, due date and performance period in the title. Then establish which confirmation was issued and which facts or documents support it.

Where the due date or end of the performance period is not stated as a calendar date or a calendar-fixed starting point, section 7(2) EO requires public or publicly certified documents in certain cases. If a required document is absent or does not prove the relevant fact, the application should explain that point directly.

The working file should contain the complete title, enforceability confirmation, service records, relevant calculations and court notices concerning the ongoing enforcement. Record the file number, date and version of each document. This makes it possible to see whether the same claim and parties are actually involved.

Section 7(5) EO permits an application to revoke the enforceability confirmation to be combined with an application for termination under section 39 no. 9 EO or a stay under section 42(2) EO. If an application is filed with a court that lacks jurisdiction for part of it, that part must be forwarded to the enforcement court.

Section 39(4) EO confirms that revocation and termination applications under section 39(1) no. 9 EO may be combined. This improves procedural coordination, but it does not remove the need to examine each requested remedy separately. The facts and documents supporting each remedy should therefore be stated distinctly.

Revocation concerns the defective confirmation. Termination concerns the ongoing enforcement. A stay under section 42 is intended to prevent further enforcement until the issue is decided. Clear separation prevents an interim measure from being treated as a final termination.

Section 42(2) EO allows a stay in cases under section 7(3) and (4) EO on the request of the competent authority or on the application of a participant. If an auction hearing, further enforcement act or another sale step is imminent, the need for an interim stay should therefore be assessed separately.

The mere filing of the revocation application is not a substitute for that assessment. It is also unsafe to assume that the hearing has already been cancelled or the sale already stopped merely because an application was submitted. Filing evidence, a court order and the current procedural position must be kept separate.

Section 42(3) EO permits the revocation application and stay application to be combined. The application should state the urgency, the threatened procedural step and the scope of the requested stay so that the court can classify the request correctly.

Section 39(1) no. 9 EO identifies the final revocation of the enforceability confirmation as a ground for termination of enforcement. Termination takes place with the simultaneous lifting of enforcement acts already carried out, insofar as the statutory requirements are met. The final nature of the revocation is therefore an independent point to verify.

Section 39(1) no. 10 EO addresses the situation where enforcement is not covered by an enforcement title or the title lacks an enforceability confirmation. This provision can become relevant alongside no. 9 where the confirmation has been revoked or is not effective in the file. The exact classification depends on the procedural record.

Section 39 EO contains further termination grounds. This article focuses on the defective enforceability confirmation. Revocation under section 7(3) EO does not decide the substantive merits of the original claim and does not replace a separate review of other objections.

The file should be arranged chronologically before the application is filed. Include the enforcement title, enforceability confirmation, authorisation order, service records, file number, claim statement, documents concerning due date and all court notices about the sale date.

The article on access to the judicial-auction file helps classify the role of participants and access to expert reports and court records. For the enforceability issue, however, the title and confirmation remain central. File access does not itself decide which court has jurisdiction over revocation.

Property documents can still be important when assessing the practical consequences of a sale. The article on contaminated sites in a judicial auction illustrates why factual property risks and procedural status should be documented separately. Only facts that establish the threatened enforcement step belong in the application under section 7 EO.

The first mistake is confusing the title court with the enforcement court. The judicial-auction court may deal with termination or a stay, while revocation of the confirmation may have to be requested from the issuing court or administrative authority.

The substantive claim and the enforceability confirmation are also often mixed together. Merely denying that the claim exists does not yet show that the confirmation was mistaken or unlawful. Conversely, an error in the confirmation may require review without reassessing the entire original dispute.

Finally, revocation is often treated as an immediate end to the sale. Sections 7(5) and 42(2) and (3) EO show that revocation, termination and a stay have different functions. Where a hearing is close, the file needs a separate review of interim protection.