Amendments to the Enforcement Law: Striking a Balance Between Efficient Debt Collection and the Right to a Home

The latest amendments to the Law on Enforcement and Security represent one of the more significant efforts to make the enforcement system in Serbia fairer and more socially responsible. The core of these changes lies in limiting the ability of public enforcement officers to sell a debtor’s sole real estate property, provided certain conditions are met: that the property is an apartment or house of up to 60 square meters, that it is owned by the debtor, and that the debtor or their family has lived in it for at least five years prior to the initiation of enforcement proceedings.

Through these amendments, the state seeks to establish a balance between creditors’ rights to collect their claims and debtors’ rights to a dignified life. In doing so, a boundary is introduced to prevent the most drastic consequence of enforcement proceedings, namely the loss of one’s home.

Positive effects can be expected in several areas. First, legal certainty for citizens is increased, as it is more clearly defined what cannot be subject to enforcement. Second, trust in institutions is strengthened, given that the public has for years been highly critical of the way the previous law was applied. Third, these provisions send a clear message that social protection is not incompatible with enforcement proceedings, but rather an integral part of them.

It is important to emphasize that these amendments do not abolish the obligation to repay debts. They do not grant amnesty to debtors, but instead establish a reasonable level of debtor protection. The aim is to prevent situations in which someone could lose their home over a minor debt, while still allowing creditors to collect their claims through other means, such as wages, movable property, or agreements on debt restructuring.

At the same time, through this approach, the legislator acknowledges the need to restore public trust in enforcement proceedings. Numerous cases from previous years have shown how sensitive the issue of forced collection is and how easily a lack of adequate oversight can lead to abuses. For this very reason, the amendments also signal the state’s return to its role as a mediator between creditors’ interests and citizens’ social security.

The new law may bring not only a fairer enforcement system, but also an important shift in perception, showing that forced collection does not necessarily have to provoke social resistance, but can instead represent a part of responsible legal practice.

Overall, the amendments to the Enforcement Law constitute a step toward a more humane, yet also more stable system of debt collection, one that does not view citizens solely as debtors, but as individuals whose fundamental rights must be respected even within enforcement proceedings.