A meeting of the committee following up on obstacles to the legal profession with the Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice

On Sunday 04/30/2023, the committee for monitoring obstacles to the legal profession, consisting of lawyer Salah Al Midfa, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors, lawyer Muhammad Al Thawadi, Secretary, lawyer Sana Bu Hammoud, rapporteur of the Professional Affairs Committee, met in the building of the Ministry of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments, His Excellency Mr. Issa Al Mannai, Undersecretary of the Ministry, Dr. Muhammad Mujbil, and Professor Arif Al-Sammak, advisors to the Minister, The meeting was devoted to discussing the obstacles related to the application of the implementation law in civil and commercial matters and the ministerial decisions issued in implementation thereof. The following was conveyed to ministry officials:

1. Article 19 of the Enforcement Law in Civil and Commercial Matters stipulates that the person executed (and not the Ministry of Justice) must notify the person executed against him before opening the execution file, and Ministerial Resolution No. 20 of 2022 stipulated in Paragraph 6 of Article 2 that notification shall be made by electronic means or by letter. Registered with acknowledgment of receipt. However, the Execution Department does not accept the request for execution after the electronic announcement unless it is made by the Ministry of Justice in exchange for a fee of two dinars, bearing in mind that the executor is the one who provided the address of the means of the electronic announcement starting when the lawsuit was filed and the executor was notified against him accordingly. It is better to The electronic notification is accepted if it is sent by the recipient in accordance with the text of the aforementioned law and decision.
2. The illegality of what was stipulated in Resolution No. 24 of 2022, From the report of the rejection of the implementation request and the loss of fees when the requirements are not met, The rejection occurs before the file is formed and reaches the enforcement judge. That is, the one who has the authority to refuse is the executive branch, while the previous system allowed the application to be postponed until requirements such as translation or bank account number were met. It is better and closer to justice than rejection and loss of fees. With the repeated mistake made by the Implementation Department employees in rejecting requests and charging litigants with additional fees, the decision in this regard should be amended and a provision should be made to postpone the request, as is the case with all government agencies and departments that do not know such a system that lacks legitimacy.
3. Ministerial Resolutions No. 23 and 25 of 2022 have introduced a system of automatic seizure decisions that are made by the electronic system of the Ministry of Justice, while the Enforcement Law has entrusted the task of issuing executive decisions to the enforcement judge, who issues the appropriate decision for each case individually. Making executive decisions in bulk through the electronic system prepared by the Ministry lacks a legal basis and is inconsistent with the rules of justice.
4. Distributing the execution files to private executors without the will of the executor and charging him with exorbitant expenses in order to implement the ruling issued in his favor is contrary to the rules of justice. Resorting to the private executor should not be mandatory, and the Ministry of Justice must not abandon its responsibility in implementing judgments that have received fees in advance. And that resorting to the private port must be permissible in the same way as for all government services entrusted to the private sector, such as education, health, traffic, municipality, and documentation, and that there is no legitimacy to the recently taken decision to lift the seizure procedures after three months have passed without resorting to a private port, The officials promised to study these matters and try to solve them.