Privacy of execution on real estate under the Real Estate Finance Law No. 148 of 2001.

The legislator has tried to achieve a balance in the relationship between the financier and the investor, by introducing expedited provisions and procedures for execution on the secured property, so that the financier can avoid the lengthy procedures stipulated in the general rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. The legislator has set out cases that are mentioned exclusively, one of which must be present, in order for the financier’s right to initiate execution procedures on the property stipulated in the Real Estate Finance Law against the investor to arise. Among these cases is that the preliminaries for execution on the property, according to the provisions of the Real Estate Finance Law, begin before the financier obtains the executive instrument itself. In fact, merely obtaining the executive instrument is considered a preliminaries for execution on the property, according to this law, in violation of the general rules contained in the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, which assume that in order to initiate execution procedures, the creditor must have an executive instrument in his possession. The law also exempts enforcement assistants from initiating enforcement procedures, and appoints a real estate agent to conduct the enforcement procedures. The legislator also assigned the task of distributing the proceeds of enforcement to the enforcement judge, regardless of the status of the enforcement procedures. Thus, the legislator has abolished several stages of enforcement stipulated in the Code of Civil Procedure, namely the agreed-upon distribution stage, the provisional list, the amicable settlement, and the final settlement. Therefore, it is necessary to explicitly stipulate that no objection may be filed to the terms of the sale, and to amend Article 20 of the Real Estate Finance Law to postpone the sale if no one bids, or if the offered price is insufficient to meet the financier's dues. It is also necessary to regulate any disagreement that may arise between the financier and the investor regarding the sufficiency of the guarantee required from the investor.