Bidding at a judicial sale and appeals against the award order

Under Article 435(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a debtor in enforcement proceedings may appeal the order awarding property to the purchaser on only two grounds: that the bidding was not properly conducted or that the property was not awarded at the highest price offered. Improper bidding means a breach of the bidding procedure itself, not an irregularity in an earlier step. On an appeal against the award order, the court examines compliance with the bidding procedure: whether Articles 489 and 490 of the Code were observed, whether the property was awarded at the highest price offered and whether the bids met the requirements of Article 492 (Supreme Court of Cassation Judgment No. 239 of 09.10.2014 in civil case No. 2533/2014). The enforcement officer’s acts before the sale, such as setting the starting price, duly notifying the parties of the valuation of the real property and the scheduled sale, and valuing the property, merely prepare the bidding and do not form part of it. The declaration of the purchaser follows the bidding and is reviewable on this appeal only insofar as it resulted in an award at a price other than the highest offered. Under point 8 of Supreme Court of Cassation Interpretative Decision No. 2 of 26.06.2015 in interpretative case No. 2/2013, bidding includes the acts of the court and bidders in connection with sealed bids submitted throughout the prescribed period, the acts of parties entitled to purchase by priority, and the acts of the enforcement officer and bidders during open bidding in fixed increments.

This article is not a legal opinion or legal advice about any particular person or situation. For assistance with a specific case, consult a lawyer about enforcement proceedings and appeals against the acts of an enforcement officer.