A Decade of the Global Code of Enforcement

An Overview of its Fundamental Principles, Actors and Provisions

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61801/Arsaequi.2025.78

Keywords:

judiciary, procedure, enforcement, procedural principles, bailiff

Abstract

Contemporary society is increasingly characterised as an educational society, in which the level of institutional and cultural development is closely interdependent with the effectiveness of the legal system. In this context, both state authorities and supranational entities, particularly those operating within economic communities, emphasise the existence of a clear correlation between a society’s level of legal, economic, and cultural development and the viability of the judicial system it promotes and consolidates. In terms of enforcement proceedings, we have previously highlighted the necessity for these to be designed and implemented in a manner that is simple, efficient, and predictable, both in the interest of the state and that of its citizens or investors, with a view to ensuring a favourable climate for investment protection and the conduct of economic activities. Over time, in support of these objectives, the International Union of Judicial Officers has initiated and contributed to the development of several normative instruments closely related to the status of judicial officers or enforcement agents, as well as to the regulation of enforcement procedures. As such, the Global Code of Enforcement represents a relevant example of such normative initiatives. Accordingly, the present study seeks to highlight both the structure and the justification of this initiative, while analysing its potential impact on the status of judicial officers or enforcement agents, as well as on the procedural framework governing enforcement proceedings.

References

Legal literature

Fricero N, Payan G, Jurisprudence européenne en matière d’exécution, de signification et de notification : Cour européenne des droits de l’homme et Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (2nd edn, UIHJ Publishing 2023)

Payan G, Droit européen de l'exécution en matière civile et commerciale (Bruylant 2012)

Payan G, ‘Efficacité de l'exécution forcée des décisions de justice : jurisprudence des Cours européennes (CJUE et CEDH)’, in A Stoica, M Schmitz and P Gielen (eds), L'efficacité du titre judiciaire et son exécution. The efficiency of court decisions and its enforcement (Bruylant 2024), 283-302

Stoica A, Executarea silită imobiliară (Universul Juridic 2008)

Reports

European Commission, Green Paper on the Effective Enforcement of Judgments in the European Union (6 March 2008) para 2 https://commission.europa.eu

European Commission, The EU Justice Scoreboard (27 March 2013) https://commission.europa.eu

Soft law

ALI/UNIDROIT, Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (2004)

Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec(2003)17 on Enforcement of Judgments (9 September 2003)

CEPEJ, Guidelines for a Better Implementation of the Existing Council of Europe Recommendation on Enforcement (Rec(2003)17) (9-10 December 2009)

European Parliament, Resolution of 22 April 2009 on the effective enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the transparency of debtors’ assets (2008/2233(INI)) P6_TA(2009)0238, OJ C 184 E/02 (2010)

International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ), Code mondial de l'exécution. Global Code of enforcement (UIHJ Pub-lishing 2015)

Hague Conference on Private International Law, Council on General Affairs and Policy, Conclusions and Recom-mendations (9-11 April 2013)

Treaties

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 28 October 1986)

OHADA, Uniform Act Organizing Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (10 April 1998)

Hague Conference on Private International Law, Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (23 November 2007)

Legislation

Law No 24/2000 on legislative drafting, republished in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No 260 of 21 April 2010

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-ments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L12/1 (repealed)

Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 on improving access to justice in cross-border disputes [2003] OJ L26/41

Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims [2004] OJ L143/15

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2012] OJ L351/1

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order [2014] OJ L189/1

Case law

C-261/90 Reichert and Others v Dresdner Bank AG [1992] ECR I-2149

Hornsby v Greece, App no 18357/91 (ECtHR, 19 March 1997)

Nuutinen v Finland, App no 32842/96 (ECtHR, 27 June 2000) (separate opinion of Judge Zupančič)

Moura Carreira and Laurenco Carreira v Portugal, App no 41237/98 (ECtHR, 6 July 2000)

Maillard Bous v Portugal, App no 41288/98 (ECtHR, 28 June 2001)

Pini, Bertani, Manera and Atripaldi v Romania, App nos 78028/01, 78030/01, 78032/01, 78034/01 (ECtHR, 22 June 2004)

Matheus v France, App no 1/2005 (ECtHR, 31 March 2005)

Gorokhov and Russaiev v Russia, App no 17/2005 (ECtHR, 17 March 2005)

Bendayan Azcantot and Bendayan Benalal v Spain, App no 9/2009 (ECtHR, 9 June 2009)

Lawyer Partner A.S. v Slovakia, App no 75617/01 (ECtHR, 16 June 2009)

Micallef v Malta, App no 17056/06 (ECtHR, 15 November 2009)

Sofiran and BDA v France, App no 11/2013 (ECtHR, 11 July 2013)

Downloads

Published

31.03.2026

Issue

Section

10th anniversary of the Global Code of Enforcement / 10e anniversaire du Code mondial de l’exécution

How to Cite

Stoica, A. (2026). A Decade of the Global Code of Enforcement: An Overview of its Fundamental Principles, Actors and Provisions. Ars æqui, 15(2), 78-93. https://doi.org/10.61801/Arsaequi.2025.78