A bank is entitled to issue a debt enforcement title vis a vis the heirs of its debtor where the latter is covered by art 97.1 of the Banking Law of 29 August 1997. Such an enforcement title may receive an enforcement clause from the competent court.

Piotr Schramm comments: 

I do not find the reasoning put forth by the Supreme Court to be convincing, particularly with regard to arts 97 and 98 of the Banking Law, especially seeing as the Supreme Court has emphasised that these statutory provisions – being, as they are, of a special nature and instituting privileges to the benefit of banks – should be interpreted strictly, with no unwarranted extrapolation. In my view, the arguments presented by the Supreme Court do not add up to a convincing rationale for issue a debt enforcement title vis a vis the heirs of a debtor covered by art 97.1 of the Banking Law if no executory title had been handed down with respect to that debtor while she/he was still alive. Art 98.2 of the Banking Law, which is cited by the Supreme Court, provides that debt enforcement may be based on a bank enforcement title endorsed with an executability clause vis a vis the debtor’s heirs but, at the same time, it refers to 97.1 of the Banking Law, which provides that an enforcement title may be issued only with respect to a person who has dealt directly with the bank and who has signed a declaration on submission to enforcement. In light of the above, there arises the question whether, if no enforcement title has been issued vis a vis a bank’s debtor, and no such title may be issued after the debtor’s death, can a bank enforcement title be issued vis a vis the heir of a debtor not covered by art 97.1 of the Banking Law ? Given that the rights and privileges of banks should be construed narrowly, this position of the Supreme Court should be approached with caution.