The seized apartment and the €1 garage: third-party objection, Paulian action and deposit
In 2022 the Basic Court in Ferizaj ordered 'Blerim' to pay €45,000 to 'Delta' sh.p.k. The judgment became final in October 2023. In February 2025 a bailiff acting for Delta seized a two-bedroom apartment in Ferizaj registered in Blerim's name, and a bank account holding €6,200. Two weeks later Blerim's mother, Fatime, filed an objection claiming the apartment is hers: she says she paid the full purchase price in 2019 from her pension savings, that Blerim only held the title as a nominee because she was then in a dispute with her late husband's family, and she produces bank transfer receipts to the seller and utility bills in her name. Meanwhile, in December 2024, Blerim transferred a garage registered in his name to his wife for €1, stating it was a gift. Delta wants to challenge that transfer too. Blerim has offered to deposit the full €45,000 with the court in exchange for lifting the seizure, arguing that he needs the apartment for his family. The apartment was never registered in Fatime's name.
1. How should the court decide Fatime's objection? Set out what she must prove and the weight of the land register against her receipts.
Read the worked answer
A third party's objection is not an appeal against the judgment; it is an assertion that the seized asset does not belong to the enforcement debtor. Fatime must prove, to the civil standard, a right over the apartment that prevails over Delta's right to seize.
The decisive fact is that the apartment is registered in Blerim's name. For immovables, ownership is acquired and transferred by registration; an unregistered purchase, even if fully paid, gives at most an obligatory claim against the seller - here, against Blerim - not a real right opposable to third parties. The 'nominee' arrangement she describes is not effective against Delta unless it was registered or unless she can show that Delta was not a bona fide third party relying on the register.
Her evidence - transfers to the original seller and utility bills in her name - is relevant but not sufficient. It may prove that she financed the purchase, which supports a claim for unjust enrichment or a loan against Blerim, not ownership against his creditor. Her strongest counterargument would be that the transfers went directly to the original seller and that the 2019 sale contract named her; even then, without registration she holds a personal claim. Her possession argument is weak because Blerim lives there.
Outcome: the objection should be rejected as to ownership. The court releases the asset only if she proves a registered right, a statutory pre-emption, or a formal defect in the seizure. She should be advised to sue Blerim separately and to consider a claim that the transfer into his name was a simulation.
2. What must Delta prove to challenge the €1 transfer of the garage to Blerim's wife, and within what framework?
Read the worked answer
Delta can attack the transfer even though it is not a party to the gift. The Paulian action allows a creditor to have a debtor's disposition declared ineffective against it where the statutory conditions are met.
Elements to establish:
- Prior claim. The creditor's claim must exist before the disposition. Delta has a judgment that became final in October 2023; the transfer was in December 2024. Satisfied.
- Prejudice. The disposition must diminish the debtor's assets so that enforcement is prejudiced. A garage transferred for €1 plainly does.
- Debtor's knowledge. The debtor must have known that the act would harm creditors, which is presumed for gratuitous acts or where the debtor was already insolvent.
- Third party's state of mind. For onerous transactions bad faith must be proved; for gratuitous or substantially gratuitous ones the threshold is lower, and the wife's good faith may not save the transfer.
The €1 price and the 'gift' label make this gratuitous in substance. The family relationship and the timing - the transfer came after the debt was final and enforcement was foreseeable - support an inference of intent to shield the asset.
Time limits: the action must be brought within the period set by law, commonly one year from knowledge of the act with an outer limit. Delta learned of it in February 2025, so it is within time, but the exact period must be checked.
Remedy: the transfer is declared ineffective only as against Delta, up to the amount of its claim plus interest and costs. If the garage has already passed to a bona fide third party, the claim converts into damages against the wife and Blerim. Apply at once for an interim note of the dispute on the garage's title record.
3. Can Blerim stop the sale by depositing €45,000, and what would a court require before lifting the seizure?
Read the worked answer
Depositing the judgment debt is a legitimate route to stop the sale, but it does not automatically annul the seizure, and €45,000 is not the right figure.
The debtor must cover the principal, the accrued interest and the enforcement costs, including the bailiff's fees. A deposit of the principal alone leaves those uncovered, and Delta may refuse to release the seizure until the full amount is secured.
Procedure: the application goes to the court conducting the enforcement, not to the bailiff. If the deposit is accepted and the creditor paid, the court orders suspension and then termination of the enforcement. Where the creditor objects - for example because it wants the apartment sold to cover possible further claims - the court decides on the balance of interests, taking account of the amount secured, the stage of the sale and the debtor's conduct.
The 'family needs' argument is not a legal ground as such. Enforcement law protects the debtor through exempt assets - the family home up to a statutory limit, essential furniture, tools of trade. If this is the family's only home, Blerim should invoke the exemption rather than ask for a discretionary favour, and the two arguments should not be confused.
Practical advice: deposit principal, interest and costs; obtain the court receipt; file a request for termination of enforcement with a copy served on Delta. Keep Fatime's objection separate - it does not suspend the sale unless the court so orders. Warn the client that a deposit does not erase the judgment and does not shield other assets from enforcement.