Problems of Confiscation of the Immovables and Execution on Their Selling, According to the Rules of the Palestinian Executive Law

The main idea of this study can be summed up in the problems of confiscation of immovable property according to the Palestinian Procedural Law. The most important problems emerge in the nature of the procedures which the Palestinian lawmaker has asked the lender to follow in order to have the immovable property of his debtor confiscated. These procedures have a lot of complications and difficulties. The lender first has to submit an application for the confiscation of this property to the executive competent judge. Then he has to check with the Lands Administration which will place a confiscation mark on this immovable property upon a request from the competent judge . After that, the property becomes confiscated under the hands of the judiciary. This means that the debtor cannot dispose it and his right to use and exploit is restricted. This includes the confiscation of the produce of the property and confiscation of the lease proceeds in the hands of the tenant and preventing him from paying them to debtor. It also means all the debtors’ actions against the lender are non-valid in the procedures statement pertinent to confiscation of immovable property available in the hands of the holder and guarantor and the explanation of the consequences resulting from its confiscation. The study in addition investigated the execution of the confiscation process of the immovable property in terms of preparing a list of all immovable property. His list includes statements of this property and attachments which the lender has to submit to the legal officer. This last one prepares it. There is also a statement of objections to the list of selling conditions which is submitted by every person who has a legal interest. These objections are either remarks on the list asking for deletion, addition or change or nullification aspects pertinent to form or content. They can also be objections cited in special texts. The study also dwelt on the procedures to be followed when announcing the selling of the immovable property in an auction, and nullification of these procedures. The study, moreover, examined the demande en distraction de saisie due to the request for ownership of the confiscated immovable property and nullification of execution procedures which have been taken and have resulted in a court decision, as these selling procedures would become non-existent if the claim is submitted in a proper legal way. In the conclusion, the researcher highlighted the most important findings. These include the Palestinian lawmaker’s taking into account of the debtor’s interest. This can be seen in making the selling of property in stages. Another finding is that the Palestinian Procedural Law has not spelled out the procedures pertinent to the confiscation of immovable property available in the hands of the holder. The lawmaker has subjected this available property in the hands of a bondsman to the Immovable Property Law to secure the Jordanian Debt # 46 of 1953.