حبس المدين في الدعوي التنفيذية

Abstract EN

This study is entitled * Imprisonment of the debtor in the executive case *.

The study aims to shed light on the fact that imprisonment of the debtor is a mean of forced execution, that the aim of which is to pressure the procrastinating debtor to fulfill his debt.

According its importance as touching and restricting freedom.

Therefore, the laws established specific procedures and certain conditions that must be met to imprison incarceration.

It also aims at showing that imprisonment is a feasible and effective means, but that it is not resorted to unless it does not find other means of implementation, and the debtor’s intransigence has emerged.

It also explains the effects of the laws ’interest in the issue of the debtor’s imprisonment, as it provides guarantees to the imprisoned debtor, Including him being imprisoned in isolation from other perpetrators of criminal offenses; As he is not a criminal.

It prevents the imprisonment of an insolvent debtor who was proven insolvent.

It does not contradict human freedom and dignity, as the study shows that imprisoning the debtor is a successful treatment and a feasible mean to limit its procrastination, and that it is not an end to itself, but rather a temporary mean to force him to pay, and its implementation does not lead to the expiry of the debt, but the debt remains occupied until the debt is paid.

The study discusses the issue of the debtor>s imprisonment in Islamic jurisprudence as well as in the law.

The study starts from the hypothesis that whether the debtor>s imprisonment in the executive lawsuit achieved his goals for which the research books were written, based on the results of the study.

The study used a research methodology that combines the analytical and inductive approaches.

The study concludes with several results, the most important of which is that the imprisonment order is not a punishment for the debtor>s insolvency but rather a mean to force him to pay whenever he has his reasons available and that the debtor>s ability to pay must be substantiated from the point of view and not just his commitment to pay.

And one of the most important recommendations that the study comes out with is that the law provides Not to imprison the debtor unless after being questioned about his ability to pay, or if it is proven to the court that he refused to pay the amount adjudicated with his ability to do so.