Article 153: Enforcement costs and who pays

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 643/2566 (2023)

   Execution costs, meaning the fee, the officer's allowance and the other expenses of execution, are a service charge the execution officer collects from the party who asks for the service. Section 153 paragraph two places them on the creditor who applies for execution. Where the execution is then withdrawn, liability is fixed by section 169/2 paragraph four, which makes the judgment creditor who applied for the seizure or attachment responsible for the execution costs in every case of withdrawal except those in section 292(1) and (5). The two provisions work together, and it is section 169/2 paragraph four that keeps the applicant liable once the execution is withdrawn.

   The plaintiff had asked the execution officer to seize the mortgaged property and sell it by auction, and then, while the auction was being carried out, filed a statement withdrawing the execution. The question was whether the plaintiff remained liable for the fee on property seized but not sold. The Supreme Court held that execution costs are a service charge collected from the party who asks for the service, that section 153 paragraph two places them on the creditor who applies for execution, and that section 169/2 paragraph four makes the judgment creditor who applied for the seizure or attachment liable for the execution costs where the execution is withdrawn otherwise than under section 292(1) and (5). The plaintiff therefore remained liable.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1046/2562 (2019)

   The party who applied for execution bears the fee for property seized but not sold or disposed of, at the rate in the fee schedule, under section 153 paragraph two read with section 149 paragraph one, section 153/1 and Table 5 item 3 annexed to the former Code. The rate is 3.5 percent of the value of the property seized, but the amount payable may not exceed the share of that property the applicant is himself entitled to receive.

   The plaintiff had the estate land seized for auction without first dividing the estate with the five defendants, contrary to the order the judgment laid down, and the seizure was set aside through the plaintiff's own fault. As the party who applied for execution the plaintiff had to pay the fee for property seized but not sold or disposed of. The Supreme Court varied the Court of Appeal on the amount: the fee is charged at 3.5 percent of the value of the property seized but must not exceed the share of that property the plaintiff is entitled to receive, since charging the full 3.5 percent of everything seized would be unfair where the person levying is also a co-owner of what was seized.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3230/2560 (2017)

   Where property is seized but not sold, the seizure fee and enforcement expenses are enforcement costs which under Section 153 paragraph two the creditor applying for enforcement must pay; if that creditor does not pay, it is a matter between the officer and that creditor and does not concern the other party.

   The Supreme Court held that where property was seized but not sold, the seizure fee under Table 5 item 3 and enforcement expenses are enforcement costs that the applying creditor, here the defendant, must pay under Section 153 paragraph two; the officer may seek those fees from that creditor's property under Section 295 ter, which is separate from withdrawing enforcement.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.