The constitutional and conventional right to be heard in the proceedings must
also be guaranteed in civil enforcement proceedings. The debtor against whom
the creditor’s claim is being enforced must have an opportunity to defend himself
against the authorised enforcement. The court issues the writ of enforcement
in a one-sided proceedings. Therefore, the debtor’s right to be heard can
only be realized with an appeal against the writ of enforcement. The legislature
must ensure a proper balance between the debtor’s right to be heard on one
side and the creditor’s right to an effective enforcement, which is an integral
part of the constitutional and conventional right of access to court, on the other.
It is necessary to bear in mind that in the case of an enforcement based on
an instrument permitting enforcement, the creditor has an upper hand over
the debtor from the outset, while such a conclusion cannot be made in the case
of an enforcement based on a trustworthy document. The article touches upon
two characteristics of the objection provisioned in the Slovenia Claim Enforcement
and Security Act, which the author believes are questionable regarding
the debtor’s right to be heard, the complete non-suspension of the objection
under certain conditions and the request for the explication of the objection.
Provisions in the comparative law, some of the theory’s standpoints, and case
law are presented, followed by a critical evaluation of the Slovenian positive
legislation and recommendations for possible changes.
Keywords: the right to be heard in the proceedings, objection to the writ of
enforcement, the right to access the court, non-suspensive, the request for explication,
proportionality.