Global Code of Enforcement
UIHJ Publication
May 2024
As conceived by the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ), the Global Code of Enforcement defines a coherent set of principles designed to structure the enforcement of enforceable titles. It follows the definition provided by Recommendation Rec(2003)17 of the Council of Europe, which describes enforcement as the implementation of judicial decisions and other enforceable titles, whether judicial or non-judicial, in accordance with the law, compelling the debtor to act, to refrain from acting, or to pay what has been adjudicated.
The Code does not aim to establish detailed technical rules for all enforcement procedures. This choice is based on two essential considerations. First, enforcement is intrinsically linked to the sovereignty of each State. Under international law, each State has exclusive authority to enforce measures within its own territory, and only officials designated by the State are entitled to carry out such enforcement. As a result, enforcement is generally limited to the territory where the debtor’s assets are located and must follow that State’s procedures. Certain precautionary measures, such as the “Mareva injunction” or “freezing order,” may, however, have extraterritorial effects. This type of measure, which prohibits a person from dealing with their assets under penalty of sanctions, has, for example, been recognised by the French Court of Cassation in a decision of 30 June 2004.
Second, civil enforcement procedures reflect specific cultural, social, and economic conditions that vary significantly across countries. The behaviour of debtors, the nature of property, and the composition of personal estates are not the same everywhere. In some jurisdictions, cars are the most common and significant asset, while in others it is bank accounts or land. Even the legal definition of property varies between legal systems: what constitutes movable or immovable, tangible or intangible property may differ, and some goods are subject to registration requirements while others are not.
In light of these differences, the aim of the Global Code of Enforcement is to identify a core set of universally applicable principles that can be adapted to the specific enforcement systems of each country. These principles help to define ideal enforcement models, regardless of the legal traditions in place. For instance, one such principle holds that a creditor in possession of an enforceable title should be entitled to seize all of the debtor’s assets immediately, without needing to initiate a new court proceeding. The implementation of this principle is left to the legal framework of each individual State.
The Global Code of Enforcement thus lays down international standards designed to promote a fair and efficient civil enforcement system worldwide. It focuses exclusively on the civil enforcement of judicial titles. It does not cover collective procedures intended to realise the assets of commercial debtors while safeguarding employees’ rights. Nor does it apply to enforcement conducted by public authorities or criminal enforcement, as these areas are governed by distinct rules that require different approaches.
