28.01.2026

Proper conduct of the third party subject to enforcement proceedings

In this article, we would like to propose a solution to a delicate problem that may be faced by persons who acquire the status of third party debtor of a debtor against whom several enforcement proceedings have been initiated.

In practice, there are frequent situations in which the bailiff, after communicating the address for the attachment of all sums of money owed by the third party to the debtor, requests the deposit of the sums of money pursuant to Art. 787 para.[1], without considering the possibility that several enforcement proceedings may have been brought against the same debtor. In this case, if the same person is a third party in several enforcement proceedings, the problem arises of how to proceed correctly if the total value of the amounts for which attachment has been ordered in all these enforcement proceedings exceeds the amount owed to the debtor by the third party.

The answer to this question is of particular practical importance, as there are frequent situations in which bailiffs ignore this scenario and request the deposit of the amounts owed anyway, referring to the provisions of Article 787(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. By invoking these provisions, it is argued that the third party subject to attachment is obliged to deposit the amount of money at the disposal of any bailiff who has instituted the attachment, communicating this to the other bailiffs. By invoking these provisions, it is argued that the third party garnishee is obliged to deposit the amount of money at the disposal of any bailiff who has instituted the garnishment, communicating the identification data and claims held by the other creditors.

In these circumstances, the third party subject to attachment is subject to the risk of an action by which the creditor requests the validation of the attachment for failure to fulfill the obligations established by Article 787(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code.

We consider that any such legal action initiated by the creditor would be unfounded, as it does not take into account the particular situation in which the amounts for which the attachment was ordered in several enforcement cases exceed the value of the third party's debt to the debtor.

In this case, the provisions of Article 789 of the Civil Procedure Code apply, according to which:

(1) Where several attachments are established and the amounts for which the attachment was ordered exceed the amount that can be recovered from the debtor's income, the third party attached shall, within the time limit provided for in Article 787(1), retain and record the amount that can be recovered, notifying the bailiffs who established the attachments, and the provisions of Article 654 shall apply. (1), shall retain and record the amount that can be pursued, notifying the bailiffs who established the attachments, the provisions of Article 654 applying accordingly.

(2) The distribution shall be made by the competent bailiff, in accordance with the provisions of Article 864 et seq.

In the situation envisaged by this text, the third party garnishee is only obliged to make the amount of money owed to the debtor unavailable until the enforcement court, at the request of any of the bailiffs or the interested person, orders the joinder of the enforcement proceedings, in accordance with Article 654 of the Civil Procedure Code. Only subsequently must the third party garnishee deposit the amount at the disposal of the competent bailiff.

This mechanism is fully justified in cases where the total value of the claims for which the attachment was established exceeds the amount owed by the third party, in order to avoid a situation where certain creditors are prejudiced. Indeed, if it were possible to validate the attachment in favor of a single creditor holding a claim exceeding the amount owed by the third party, this would lead to a situation where the other creditors would be unable to recover anything.

Therefore, the garnishee does not have the option of choosing which enforcement officer to pay the amount of money to, but is only obliged to make it unavailable and to notify each enforcement officer of the names and extent of the claims of the other creditors, indicating that the total amount exceeds the amount owed to the debtor.

We note that our interpretation has also been confirmed in court practice, including at the Bucharest Tribunal: "The Tribunal notes that the letters and documents in the file show that the third party garnishee notified the bailiff that several garnishments had already been established in separate enforcement cases, handled by different bailiffs, and that the total amount of the garnished sums exceeded the limit of the claim against the debtor. several attachments had already been established in separate enforcement cases, conducted by different bailiffs, and the total amount of the attached sums exceeded the limit of the debt owed by the third party to the debtor (f. 46, case file). In these circumstances, the provisions of Article 789 of the Civil Procedure Code, which regulate the situation of competing attachments on the same claim, are applicable, the third party having the obligation to freeze the amounts and to notify the existence of competing proceedings, without being able to proceed, on its own initiative, allocate or distribute the amounts among the creditors, the distribution of the amounts being the responsibility of the bailiff after the enforcement files have been joined (Articles 654 and 864 of the Civil Procedure Code)."[2]

"Since other attachments have been established on the debtor's accounts, the third party has informed the bailiff of this circumstance, in accordance with the provisions of Article 786(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, indicating the other creditors and the amounts attached by them, an obligation imposed by the aforementioned legal provision.

From this moment on, the provisions of Article 653 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to the joinder of enforcement proceedings, apply, but a third party garnishee has no powers in this matter, as jurisdiction lies with the enforcement court, which will be notified by the interested party or by any of the enforcement officers. Furthermore, the distribution is not carried out by the third party garnishee, but by the competent bailiff, in accordance with Article 863 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a legal provision referred to in Article 788(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.[3]

In conclusion, we recommend that economic operators against whom the attachment is established: (i) inform the bailiff if several enforcement proceedings have been initiated against the debtor in which they are third parties, (ii) freeze the amounts owed to the debtor, (iii) indicate all enforcement files in which they are third parties subject to attachment, including the date of establishment and the amount for which the attachment was established. They are not required to record the amounts owed at the disposal of the bailiff, and may invoke the above arguments to defend themselves in a request for validation of the attachment initiated by the creditor.

An article signed by Dan-Rareș Răducanu, Senior Partner - rraducanu@stoica-asociatii.ro - and Mircea Vasile, Associate - mvasile@stoica-asociatii.ro -  STOICA & ASOCIAȚII

[1] Within 5 days of notification of the attachment, and in the case of sums of money due in the future, from their due date, the attached third party is obliged: 1. to record the sum of money […]