The first question referred to the SCC concerns the termination of enforcement proceedings in the case of multiple so-called “joint and several debtors”, i.e. one person (creditor) has a claim (receivable) against two or more persons (joint and several debtors), and the creditor may direct enforcement against any of the debtors for the entire obligation, at his discretion. Such a hypothesis exists, for example, in the case of a guarantor agreement - the principal debtor and the guarantor are jointly and severally liable towards the creditor.

The SCC considers in particular the termination ground under art. 433 para. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cited provision lays down that the enforcement proceedings shall be terminated by a decree when the creditor does not request enforcement actions for two years, i.e. the so-called “peremption” occurs - the inaction of the creditor is a terminating ground for the enforcement proceedings.

In the hypothesis of joint and several liability, the debatable issue, which has been controversially resolved by the courts so far, is: 1) whether it is possible for peremption to occur against only some of the joint and several debtors if the creditor has not taken enforcement action specifically against them, or 2) taking enforcement action against any of the joint and several debtors automatically excludes the possibility of peremption against the other joint and several debtors (against whom the creditor has “failed to act”).

The SCC upheld the second opinion, stating that for peremption to occur, there must be inaction by the claimant with respect to all of the joint and several debtors. The above means that if the creditor initiates enforcement action against one of the debtors, this excludes the possibility of the termination of the proceedings in respect of any of the other joint and several debtors.

The opinion is based, first of all, on the nature of the joint and several liability, which constitutes a type of security for the creditor, and on the prohibition of over-secured and excessive enforcement - it is illogical to argue that the creditor is obliged to take enforcement actions against each of the joint and several debtors (in most cases it is also economically unjustified if the number of debtors is significant) in order to prevent peremptory proceedings.

In the cited interpretative decision, the SCC also ruled on an issue related to the statute of limitations, in particular - whether the latter is interrupted by an enforcement action taken under an enforcement case in which peremption has already occurred.

The SCC answers the question of law to be interpreted in the affirmative, arguing that the only relevant factor for the interruption of the limitation period is whether the creditor acts or fails to act with regard to the recovery of the claim. By filing an application for enforcement action, albeit under an enforcement procedure which has been terminated due to peremption, the creditor is clearly not inactive, but actively seeking payment/enforcement.

The above resolutions are certainly in the interest of medium and large businesses, which often have substantial claims against their counterparties, thereby ensuring greater certainty/security as to the successful recovery of such debts.