Article 114: Types of security

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 932/2538 (1995)

   A person who applies for and stands as surety has the duty to furnish security under Section 114, but no law requires that security to be owned solely by the surety; furnishing another person's land as security, where that person consents, is valid and does not make the surety a mere agent of the landowner.

   The first defendant furnished land belonging to the second defendant, who consented, as bail security. The Supreme Court held this valid under Section 114 and rejected the argument that the surety merely acted as the landowner's agent.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 791/2531 (1988)

   The security stated in a bail contract is only a preliminary security under Section 114; a bail contract is not a mortgage under Civil and Commercial Code Section 702, so a judgment creditor on a forfeited bail contract may seize and sell the surety's other property until the debt is fully satisfied, not only the pledged asset.

   The Supreme Court held that because bail security is only preliminary and the bail contract is not a mortgage, the creditor could enforce the judgment against all of the surety's property until the debt was fully paid.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 553/2510 (1967)

   Where a person stands as security by showing assets under Section 114(3), the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide the enforcement procedure, so the civil execution rules apply through Section 15; the judgment creditor of the surety may seize and sell that person's property in full to satisfy the court's fine order.

   After the surety failed to pay the ordered forfeiture, the Supreme Court applied civil execution through Section 15 and held that the creditor could seize and sell the surety's property in full to satisfy the court's order.

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