Author: Ms. Islam Al-Bayed
The financial and commercial dealings between individuals impose the emergence of an obligation owed by both parties to this relationship, which has led to the necessity of the legislator’s intervention to regulate the relationship between its two parties. Among the important matters that the legislator intervened to organize, were those controls that govern the debtor’s obligation to fulfill the creditor and the guarantees that ensure that the debtor performs his obligation and performs his obligations. The texts of the Civil Procedure Code came with important provisions in this field. The most important thing for the creditor always remains to ensure that the debtor fulfills his obligation and his right to resort to the judiciary to compel the debtor to fulfill and take the necessary measures to implement the judgments issued in his favor, perhaps, among other things, urging and compelling the debtor to fulfill in the event of his stubbornness, which is the right to demand strict measures to ensure his fulfillment, one of those procedures is the right to demand that the debtor be prevented from traveling.
Therefore, the law came with texts that guarantee the right of the creditor and set conditions to ensure that this right is not abused and controlled in a way that achieves the interests of all and that reflects positively on the stability of society, which is the ultimate goal of every legislation. The Civil Code stipulates in Article 269 that:
(All the debtor’s money is a guarantee for the payment of his debts, and all creditors are equal in this guarantee, except for those who have the right of priority in accordance with the law))
As it is also stated in Article 405:
((The creditor may ask the execution judge to order to prevent his debtor from traveling, if serious reasons arise from which it is feared that the debtor will flee from the litigation or smuggle his money. The debtor may appeal against the order and request its cancellation if he deposits the value of the debt in the court’s treasury or provides a sufficient guarantee with it, or if there were strong reasons to cancel it))
It is clear from the above text that the creditor may request to prevent his debtor from traveling and the decision to ban travel is issued by a decision from the judge, whether it is a civil judge before the issuance of the judgment or an execution judge after the judgment is issued and is under execution.
In order to preserve the stability of society and not to abuse the creditor and for fear of infringing the freedom of persons, the legislator stipulated that a certain reason be available to give the creditor the right to request a travel ban, and it is sufficient for one of the reasons mentioned in the article to request a travel ban order and enable the judge to decide on this request, which are:
- If there are serious reasons for fear that the debtor will smuggle his money.
- If there are serious reasons for fear that the debtor will flee from the litigation.
As soon as one of these reasons was established, the creditor requests a travel ban, and he has to prove that one of these two reasons has provided compelling evidence confirming what he has said, and he has to attach documents supporting those reasons, otherwise the rejection would be the fate of the request.
There is no doubt that this right is an exceptional right of the creditor, which restricts the debtor in freedom of movement., therefore, it was necessary that it not be expanded unless there were serious reasons for this as stated in the law. A travel ban request is submitted in accordance with the text of Article 406 of Law No. (13) of 1990, the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, as stated in the text of the Article: –
(The travel ban order is requested with a justified petition, and in obtaining it and appealing it, the rules and procedures stipulated in part nine of book one of this law shall follow.)
As for those who are subject to this ruling, it is clear from the text of Article 405 that every debtor may be subject to this request regardless of his nationality or gender.
Article 407 states:
(The travel ban order does not prejudice the authority of the administration to terminate the residence of the non-Qatari debtor or order him to leave the country or deport him, if the public interest so requires).
This indicates the possibility of terminating the residence of the non-Qatari debtor and taking a decision to deport him, even if a travel ban was issued against him in accordance with the text of the aforementioned article, the public authority, with its supremacy, is able to take this decision and implement it by force of law, and the text came confirming this general idea, which gave it additional legitimacy.
So, the travel ban is an authority owned by the court under the law, which is implemented at the request of the creditor to ensure that the debtor implements his obligation in case of his stubbornness. The authority remains discretionary to the court, to exercise it according to what it sees fit, and while what the creditor might see in his request as fulfillment of those conditions mentioned by the legislator, the court may not see it as such.
Finally, the prohibition of travel is an exception to the principle, which is the guarantee of freedom, which the legislator restricted with those controls contained in the law and is exercised in accordance with them, and it is not permissible to expand upon it or to interpret it broadly for fear of compromising the freedom of people.