论文部分内容阅读
住房公积金能否成为民事保全和民事强制执行对象,理论界和司法实践过程中争议较大。建设部的几次函件与最高人民法院的司法解释、通知、办法、批复等观点不尽一致,具体操作过程如何适用法律,各地法院、公积金主管部门掌握的尺度也是千差万别。本文通过分析比较认为住房公积金在民事诉讼保全程序中依法可以作为保全对象,但应当为有条件的保全和执行,必须保障被执行人的基本生活及居住条件。具体条件建议由建设部和最高人民法院联合发文规定,以统一尺度。
Whether housing provident fund can become the object of civil preservation and civil enforcement, there is much controversy in the theoretical circle and judicial practice. Several letters of the Ministry of Construction are not consistent with the views of the Supreme People’s Court on judicial interpretation, notification, measures and approval, and so on. How laws are applied in the specific operation process are different from those of courts and fund supervisors in various places. In this paper, through analysis and comparison, the housing provident fund can be regarded as the object of preservation according to law in the procedure of preservation of civil litigation. However, it is necessary to ensure the basic living and living conditions of the executors for the preservation and implementation of conditions. Specific conditions recommended by the Ministry of Construction and the Supreme People’s Court jointly issued a document to a uniform standard.