The National Assembly voted to pass the amended Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.

On the morning of November 25, National Assembly deputies worked in the Hall to vote to pass the Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement and discussed the draft Civil Code (amended).

National Assembly deputies vote to pass the Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement. Photo: VNA

Through the draft Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement

The draft Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement was passed by the National Assembly with 84.1% of delegates in favor.

The report on explanation, acceptance and revision of the draft Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement of the National Assembly Standing Committee has clarified a number of contents that still have different opinions after discussion.

Regarding the request for enforcement of judgments (Article 31), National Assembly delegates have two types of opinions: First, agree with the provisions of the draft Law to maintain the provisions on two mechanisms for making decisions on enforcement of judgments: civil judgment enforcement agencies proactively make decisions on enforcement of judgments and make decisions on enforcement of judgments upon request.

Second, it is proposed to remove the provisions on the application for enforcement of judgments. Regarding this issue, the National Assembly Standing Committee assesses that the provisions on the mechanism for issuing decisions on enforcement of judgments are one of the important issues of this Law.

The National Assembly Standing Committee has directed the Secretariat of the session to collect opinions from National Assembly deputies by ballot on both options. However, the opinions of National Assembly deputies on the option of "removing the regulation on petitions for execution of judgments" have not yet received high consensus.

Practice has also shown that the mechanism for making decisions on enforcement of judgments upon request has ensured the principles of self-determination, agreement, and voluntariness of the parties in resolving civil relations. The current limited effectiveness in civil enforcement is mainly due to implementation, not due to problems with this provision. Therefore, the National Assembly Standing Committee proposed that the National Assembly retain the provision on the request for enforcement of judgments as in Article 31 of the draft Law.

Regarding the duties and powers of the People's Court in enforcing civil judgments (Article 170), through discussion, there were opinions suggesting that the civil judgment enforcement agency be responsible for regularly reporting to the Court on the progress and results of the enforcement of all judgments and decisions, as a basis for the Court to monitor and supervise the enforcement of judgments and clearly stipulate the responsibility of the civil judgment enforcement agency in reporting the results of the enforcement of judgments to the Court.

There is a proposal to stipulate that civil enforcement agencies only report when requested by the Court. The National Assembly Standing Committee believes that, in order to enhance the Court's responsibility in reviewing judgments and decisions with errors according to the provisions of law, it is necessary to supplement the provision that civil enforcement agencies report the results of enforcement to the Court.

However, since the Court is not the administrative agency for civil judgment enforcement, reporting only needs to be done when requested by the Court and does not necessarily have to be reported regularly to reduce administrative procedures.

In response to comments from National Assembly deputies, the National Assembly Standing Committee amended and supplemented regulations on the reporting responsibility of civil judgment enforcement agencies to the People's Council, People's Committee, and People's Court in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the draft Law.

During the remaining time of this morning's working session, National Assembly deputies discussed the draft Civil Code (amended).

On the basis of agreeing with the need for fundamental and comprehensive amendments to the Civil Code, through discussion, many National Assembly deputies assessed that the Civil Code is a very important law, affecting basic social relationships, directly affecting all activities and lives of organizations, individuals and families. Therefore, amending and supplementing the Civil Code is not only to solve problems and problems, meeting the requirements of socio-economic development, but more importantly, to build the Civil Code into a common law of the legal system related to civil, economic and commercial relations, contributing to ensuring the stability and sustainability of social relations on the basis of inheriting and developing Vietnamese civil law.

Different opinions on the form of ownership

Discussing the form of ownership (Article 206), the draft stipulates two options on the form of ownership: Option 1 identifies three forms of ownership: public ownership, private ownership and common ownership; Option 2 identifies two forms of ownership: private ownership and common ownership; at the same time, it recognizes the form of ownership for public assets under public ownership as unified common ownership with the State representing the owner and uniformly managing.

Through discussion, many opinions agree that it is necessary to amend the regulations on the classification of ownership forms, because the regulation of ownership forms in the way of listing as in the current Civil Code does not ensure stability because these subjects are always changing and fluctuating according to socio-economic development. However, there are currently two types of opinions on how to classify ownership forms and how many forms of ownership there are.

Some opinions agree with option 1 because they believe that if only two forms of ownership are stipulated, namely common ownership and private ownership, it is unreasonable, does not fully reflect the "multiple forms of ownership" nature of a multi-sector economy, and does not cover all specific provisions on ownership in the Constitution (public ownership, private ownership, etc.).

According to the provisions of the Constitution, land, water resources, mineral resources, marine and air resources, other natural resources and assets invested and managed by the State are public assets owned by the entire people, with the State representing the owner and uniformly managing them.

Thus, these types of assets are owned by the entire people, and the State is the representative owner. Therefore, legal documents, especially the Civil Code, need to acknowledge the ownership of the entire people.

According to delegate Nguyen Thanh Bo (Thanh Hoa), option 1 fully and comprehensively represents the forms of ownership currently existing in our country, including legal ownership within the connotation of common ownership.

Delegates believe that determining the form of ownership must be based on the difference in the way the owner exercises the rights of possession, use, and disposal of the property, not on who is the subject of ownership as currently regulated. Some opinions suggest that there are only two forms of ownership: joint ownership and private ownership.

Delegate Tran Du Lich (Ho Chi Minh City) said that there should be public ownership as a form of common ownership as stated in the Constitution. Common ownership is national ownership, represented by the State. Regarding the ownership subject, the delegate also suggested that there should be two clear subjects: legal entities and natural persons.

Clarifying types of legal entities

Regarding types of legal entities (Articles 111 and 112), the draft Code stipulates two basic types of legal entities, namely commercial legal entities, which are legal entities operating with the main objective of seeking profits; non-commercial legal entities, which are legal entities operating without the main objective of seeking profits and without distributing profits to members.

Delegate Vu Tien Loc (Thai Binh) assessed that the practical application of the 2005 Civil Code shows that the legal entity system still has many shortcomings and needs to be amended. However, this draft does not change the approach compared to the current Code on the concept of legal entity, and the provisions of the draft are even unclear compared to the current law.

The delegate affirmed that there has been no breakthrough in the draft on the concept of legal entity and therefore all the practical problems have not been resolved. To solve this problem, the delegate suggested that it is necessary to change the approach towards determining whether an organization is a legal entity or not according to specific provisions of the law...

Delegate Tran Du Lich suggested that it is necessary to clarify public and private legal entities. For public legal entities, it is necessary to clarify two types: public legal entities and non-public legal entities. In which, public legal entities are government agencies, courts... and non-public legal entities are social organizations such as hospitals, schools...

Commenting on this issue, delegate Nguyen Cong Hong (Dong Nai) stated that the new draft only addresses the relationship between the old legal entity and the new legal entity when merging, consolidating, separating and converting, but has not mentioned resolving the relationship between the old legal entity and the new legal entity regarding the rights and interests that have been determined before the above time between these legal entities and third parties.

The delegate suggested that the law should have content affirming the principle that the merger, consolidation, separation, and conversion of legal entities does not transfer the rights and interests of a third party established before that time, except in cases where there is the consent of the third party. This is extremely important because it will ensure stability and civility, the delegate affirmed.

Protect the rights of illegal possessors of property but in good faith

Discussing the protection of an illegal possessor of property but in good faith (hereinafter referred to as a bona fide third party) when a civil transaction is invalid (Article 145), the draft Civil Code supplements regulations on civil transactions with third parties that are not invalid in cases where the transaction is for property that must have ownership registered and that property has been registered with a competent state agency (Clause 2, Article 145).

In case the subject of a civil transaction is property that must be registered for ownership but that property has not been registered with a competent state agency but has been transferred through another transaction to a third party, this transaction is invalid, except in the case where the third party in good faith receives this property through auction or transaction with a person who, according to the judgment or decision of a competent state agency, is the owner of the property but later this person is not the owner of the property because the judgment or decision is annulled or amended (Clause 3, Article 145).

Delegate Lu Thi Luu (Lao Cai) assessed that the draft law's protection of bona fide third parties has been expanded compared to the current law. However, according to the delegate, the provisions in the draft Code do not guarantee the civil rights of citizens; they disregard the real owners, especially those who have been in transactions for many generations, as well as the protection of illegal acts of individuals and competent state agencies in the registration of real estate or movable property with registered ownership.

For the above reasons, the delegate proposed that this content should be kept as the current law, only amending and supplementing Clause 2, Article 138 of the 2005 Civil Code as follows: In case the transacted property is real estate or movable property for registration of ownership that has been transferred by another transaction to a bona fide third party, the transaction with the third party is invalid, except in the case where the bona fide third party obtains this property through an auction in accordance with the provisions of law, or the transaction is with the person who, according to the judgment of a competent state agency, is the owner of the property.

Regarding the protection of the rights of a bona fide third party when a civil transaction is invalid: Clause 2, Article 145 of the draft stipulates that in the case where the subject of the transaction is property that must be registered for ownership and that property has been registered with a competent authority, and then transferred by another transaction to a third party, this person, based on that registration, establishes and executes the transaction, then that transaction is not invalid, except in the case where the third party knows, or should know, that property has been illegally appropriated or against the will of the owner.

Delegate Nguyen Thanh Bo said that the above regulation only protects the rights of third parties but does not protect the legitimate rights and interests of the owner.

According to the delegate, the settlement process will be difficult to prove whether the third party is truly in good faith or not, even if they know that the property that is the subject of the transaction has been illegally appropriated against the owner's will. However, if they know that the second party in the civil transaction is no longer able to pay, the third party will never admit that they know, so as not to be bound to return the property to the owner (especially in cases where the second party in the transaction colluded with the third party).

Thus, the rights of the owner will be seriously damaged. Therefore, the delegate proposed that it is appropriate to maintain the provisions on protecting the rights of bona fide third parties as in Article 138 of the current Code.

During the discussion session, National Assembly delegates gave their opinions on many other issues: the time to establish ownership of assets that must be registered (Article 179); application of customs and analogous application of law (Articles 12 and 13).

According to Vietnam+