Challenges of Enforcing In-Kind Commitments at the Debtor's Expense

In situations where the debtor fails to fulfill their obligation directly, particularly when their personal qualities are not the cause, execution can proceed without the debtor's involvement. Instead, another party steps in to fulfill the debtor's obligation. However, a dilemma arises when the creditor enforces the commitment at the expense of the debtor. This raises the question of whether this form of enforcement deviates from the concept of direct execution and the circumstances under which the creditor has the right to resort to this method. It is crucial to clarify the legal scenarios for cases where execution occurs at the debtor's expense with or without court permission. This study has yielded several findings and recommendations, one of which is that the court should grant permission for the creditor to execute at the debtor's expense when it is feasible. The fundamental principle is to obtain court permission for the creditor to carry out direct execution at the debtor's expense. In urgent situations, there is a deviation from this principle. The expert proposes the elimination of debtor-funded execution without court approval, while advocating for execution to be carried out under the authorization of the court. This is due to the fact that in urgent circumstances, the creditor has the option to approach the court with an urgent request, which allows for swift decision-making and the establishment of legal parameters for such cases.