In today's world, faced on the one hand with a global financial crisis, with a shortage of jobs and incomes, and on the other hand with the economy's desire for people to spend as much as possible to stimulate the economy, there are great personal (existential!) tragedies. These are mostly the result of the "scissors" of consumption and the (in)ability to meet financial obligations, which in most cases is not "default with the intention of deceiving or defrauding the creditor".
THEME PROPOSAL: I therefore propose that the Government or its authorities consider introducing in the Enforcement Act and in the by-laws governing the work of enforcement agents in relation to tasks involving monetary claims the principle of proportionality in the assessment of costs, taking into account the nature of the debt, and at the same time imposing on enforcement agents a maximum amount of the costs they can claim for their work, taking into account the principle of proportionality and the nature of the debt.
CLARIFICATION: The practice of bailiffs is undoubtedly different, but in my opinion there are still too many open doors for peculiar interpretations of the law and the by-laws (especially the Rules on the Work of the Bailiff). This is also evidenced by the latest Verified (ProPlus, 9.4.2013) and the shocking experiences of individuals (complaints to the Ministry of Justice and the competent Chamber of Bailiffs).
Example 1: In the media we often read about the experiences of people who saw bailiffs or their assistants dressed as police specials at their door and who, as they themselves justify their visit, were there by order of the court AND the creditor(!). They present themselves as bailiffs who have come to collect an outstanding debt.
All well and good, but when we learn from these stories that the debt in question is EUR 100, which, together with interest and administrative costs, amounts to EUR 150 after a year, we first wonder why two people are reporting this and why they are charging another EUR 100 for this job. Of course, after they want to take away an older piece of furniture, which they value at an unrealistically high amount (in the small ads it sells for 50EUR, but it was valued at 500EUR). For the transport they need a removal service (cost ~1000EUR) and paid storage costs (~5EUR per day).
This case, which is a fairly common example of the enforcement of unpaid claims, therefore shows very clearly that there is a lack of proportionality. If the debtor, who is stressed and under psychological pressure, nods and says "yes, I don't have another one, take it", the bailiff will understand this as a consensual decision, which the debtor will even have to authenticate by signing the note. And so, after one month, the debt will be €1,250 instead of €150! Of course, the creditor still hasn't got the money, and the debtor has become even more indebted!
POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Introduce the principle of proportionality and the type of debt into the law and regulations on enforcement and the work of enforcement officers as follows:
TYPE OF DEBT:
1. household debts (regular monthly charges for electricity, water, sewerage, sewerage, telephone, cable TV, internet, mobile telephony, etc.) and non-payment of maintenance.
2. debts arising from loans and other financial relationships
3. debts arising from business relationships
4. other debts (compensation, etc., etc.)
IMPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY:
For the first type of debts (household expenses and maintenance), over which the creditor and the debtor have no significant influence or possibility of securing the claim, the costs of enforcement would thus be deemed not to exceed 100% of the amount owed (i.e. principal and default interest), but not more than the average wage in the Republic of Slovenia (at the time the debt was incurred). The creditor, being a senselessly "hard-headed" and irrationally enthusiastic enforcer, would pass on the eventual excess of the costs to his own account. For this type of debt, it is not possible to mortgage the property unless the debtor expressly agrees to it or the debt exceeds 200% of the average net monthly salary.
The second type of debt (loans and financial relationships) usually already contains collateral, so it makes little sense to add disproportionate recovery costs to the debtor. If anything, a scale (e.g.) should be developed in this respect:
If the debt is < €500 --> up to max. 100% of the amount owed (principal + interest)
If the debt is €501 - €2,500 --> up to 75% of the amount owed (principal + interest)
If the debt is 2501 - 10.000EUR --> up to 50% of the amount owed (principal + interest)
If the debt is over 10.000EUR --> up to max 25% of the amount owed (principal + interest)
 
The costs of enforcement on account of business relationships where a legal person or a person carrying out a gainful activity acts as debtor should be valued according to the amount and nature of the debt, but in any case should not exceed 100% of the debt (principal + interest).
The recovery of other debts (in the last group) should not exceed 100% of the value of the debt (principal and default interest).