Explained: Preventing the Execution of Real Estate Sale Judgements

On March 2, the transitional government’s Ministry of Finance issued an official letter to the Ministry of Justice requesting courts to refrain from referring judicial rulings related to the confirmation of real estate sales to the Land Registry. This decision, which was not accompanied by any public announcement or official explanation at the time, has sparked extensive legal debate due to its direct impact on the execution of court rulings and the rights of property owners.

This has raised discussions regarding the scope of executive authority in dealing with judicial rulings, and whether this decision constitutes an overreach by the executive branch that undermines the effectiveness of the judiciary and restricts property rights. This article examines the process of executing real estate sale rulings, exploring the overlaps between judicial and administrative authorities, and placing these developments within the broader context of conflicting circulars and uncoordinated decisions issued in recent months.

A judicial ruling confirming a property sale is considered an official ownership document, executed through a series of steps starting in court and ending in the Land Registry.

Procedurally, the sale of a property is confirmed when the buyer files a “confirmation of sale” lawsuit against the seller in the competent civil court. After the seller acknowledges the validity of the sale before the judge, the court issues a ruling in accordance with the requests stated in the lawsuit. To secure the ruling and make it final, both parties waive their right to appeal, rendering the judgment definitive and executable. These steps apply to all properties; however, execution without opening a formal execution file is only applicable in the case of licensed properties located in zoned areas.

In the case of licensed properties located in zoned areas, the buyer may then begin executing the judgment without opening an execution file in the court’s Execution Department. The seller (the party against whom the execution is directed) is summoned or officially notified of the execution. Upon appearing, the seller waives their right to object to the execution.

Through this procedure, the buyer – acting as the executor – requests the Head of Execution to enforce the judgment and refer it to the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs for official registration. The Execution Office authenticates a copy of the judgment and attaches it to an execution referral addressed to the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs in the region where the property is located. This referral is valid for no more than three months. If not used within this period, it becomes void, and the executor must request a new referral.

Before the ruling is recorded in the Land Registry, the property must be cleared of taxes and fees at the competent financial department. A real estate file is then opened to record the judgment in the buyer’s name on the property’s official record, without the need for the seller to be present, as the definitive court ruling constitutes a final ownership deed meeting all legal requirements.

Based on the above, the Ministry of Finance’s request to prevent the referral of judgements to the Land Registry effectively suspends the execution of definitive judicial rulings in a way that raises serious constitutional concerns regarding judicial independence. This intervention contradicts constitutional principles guaranteeing judicial independence. It also violates the Constitutional Declaration issued in March, which explicitly states the principle of separation of powers and the prohibition of interference by one authority in the affairs of another.

In this context, it becomes clear that no authority has the power to suspend the execution of a definitive judicial ruling. Final judgements are executed by force of law, and any failure to execute them constitutes a clear violation that results in legal liability for the responsible party. Thus, even if the Ministry of Finance is facing administrative or financial challenges, it has neither the legal authority nor judicial precedent to obstruct the execution of a fully lawful judicial process.

Sources within the Ministry of Finance reported that the decision was a response to confusion within the real estate and financial departments caused by a surge in transaction volumes and the suspension of operations in several departments since December 2024. Although this justification highlights real administrative challenges, it does not provide a legal basis for halting the execution of definitive judicial rulings. It would have been more appropriate to address administrative problems through improved verification mechanisms and financial procedures rather than by suspending a completed judicial process.

Such a suspension, even if not intended to undermine rights, weakens the rule of law, particularly when institutional dysfunction is passed on to citizens in matters affecting their fundamental rights to property and disposal of assets.

This step is not isolated from a broader trend of administrative decisions taken since December 8, 2024, which have nearly completely frozen real estate sales and transfer transactions. On January 21, the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs issued a circular prohibiting the documentation of any transaction that creates or transfers a real right. It later allowed only the registration of notes, without lifting the ban on sale contracts.

On January 9, the Ministry of Justice prohibited the registration of lawsuits for real estate sale confirmation, only to reverse the decision on January 30. The Bar Association has continued to oscillate between banning and regulating judicial power of attorney procedures. All of this reveals a lack of a unified strategy and has opened the door to arbitrary decisions by competing authorities acting without coordination, resulting in a de-facto paralysis in the real estate sector.

The sensitivity of the Ministry of Finance’s decision lies in the fact that it does not merely constitute an administrative restriction, it also indicates a broader trend that could substantially weaken the standing of judicial rulings in the executive process. In the absence of institutional coordination, some judicial decisions are reduced to suspended documents awaiting the fulfilment of unclear or incomplete administrative conditions. This situation does not necessarily reflect a deliberate intent to undermine judicial independence but rather reveals a breakdown in inter-authority relations that could, in practice, diminish the judiciary’s effectiveness.

 While some legal experts view this as a breach of constitutional principles, others argue that it does not constitute direct interference in judicial work, but rather reflects administrative dysfunction. In this view, the Ministry of Finance’s circular, though it appears to suspend judicial rulings, does not legally amount to a violation of judicial independence or the separation of powers. The court’s role ends with the issuance of the ruling, after which the task shifts to administrative bodies responsible for its execution under their own procedural requirements. In cases where administrative conditions for execution are lacking – such as for properties in unregulated informal areas – the refusal to register does not constitute interference in the judicial ruling itself but rather relies on administrative obstacles preventing execution. Nonetheless, this circular remains a clear restriction on property rights, directly contradicting the constitution, and reflects a state of confusion and arbitrariness in state decision-making following the fall of the previous regime.

From a legal and constitutional standpoint, it would have been more appropriate for such a directive to come from the Higher Judicial Council, as the legally authorised body for regulating inter-authority relations. However, this council remains inactive, reinforcing a state of institutional vacuum that deepens the fragility of both the judiciary and executive branches.