Financijska agencija (FINA) u domaćem je pravom poretku prepoznata kao važan akter ovršnog postupka. Ovrha na novčanim sredstvima i mogućnost izravne naplate za većinu ovrhovoditelja predstavljaju najbrži i najjeftiniji način prisilnog podmirenja njihovih tražbina. No, to ne znači da je provedba ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima slobodna od praktičnih nedostataka. Razlog istraživanja koje se prezentira u ovom radu leži upravo u praktičnom iskustvu s postupanjima FINA-e u postupcima izravne naplate. Iskustva odvjetnika koji zastupaju stranke u tzv. agencijskoj ovrsi ukazuju na postojanje određenih nedostataka
u provedbi takve ovrhe. Nedostatci u pravilu potječu iz pretjerano formalnog tumačenja primjenjivih normi i nevoljkosti primjene rješenja općeg ovršnog prava. Njihovom nastanku i perpetuiranju pogoduje nemogućnost ulaganja pravnih lijekova i posljedično odsustvo izravne sudske kontrole nad FINA-inim radom. Ovrhovoditelji su, stoga, većinom prigrlili metodu „pokušaja i pogreške“ te prihvaćaju praktične manjkavosti vođeni idejom što skorije i bezbolnije naplate, bez pretjeranog interesa za pravnu sigurnost i funkcioniranje sustava u cjelini. To ne iznenađuje, jer ovrha za vjerovnike većinom i nije drugo do posljednji korak skupog i dugotrajnog postupka naplate. No, sagledamo li širu perspektivu, pretjerana učestalost praktičnih teškoća u izravnoj naplati može negativno utjecati na pravnu sigurnost i umanjiti učinkovitost sustava ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima u cjelini.
Slijedom navedenog, smatramo da postoje razlozi za temeljitiju analizu rada FINA-e u provedbi ovrhe, osobito izravne naplate. U ovom radu izlažemo i analiziramo one nedostatke u provedbi ovrhe na novčanim sredstvima koje smo identificirali kao najčešće i, gdje je to moguće, predlažemo rješenja za njihovo otklanjanje.The Financial Agency (FINA) is recognized in the local legal system as a signifi cant player in enforcement proceedings. For the majority of creditors, enforcement against monetary assets, and the possibility of direct collection, represent the quickest and cheapest way of forceful collection of their claims. However, this does not mean that execution of enforcement against monetary assets is free from faults. The reason behind the research presented in this paper lies precisely in practical experiences with FINA’s conduct in direct collection. Experiences of attorneys representing parties in socalled agency enforcement indicate the existence of certain shortcomings in the execution of such enforcement. These shortcomings generally arise from the excessively formal interpretation of applicable norms and the unwillingness to apply rules of general enforcement law. Their emergence and perpetuation is favoured by the impossibility of using legal remedies and the consequent absence of direct judicial control over FINA’s work. Creditors have, therefore, largely embraced the “trial and error” method and accept the practical shortcomings guided by the goal of quick and effortless collection, without much regard for legal security and functioning of the system as a whole. This is not surprising, as enforcement for creditors is largely the last step of an expensive and long collection process. But, if we look at the broader perspective, an excessive frequency of practical difficulties in direct collection can adversely aff ect legal certainty and reduce the efficiency of enforcement against monetary assets as a whole. Following this, we consider there are reasons for a more thorough analysis of FINA’s work in enforcement, specifically direct collection. In this paper, we present and analyse those shortcomings in enforcement against monetary assets we identified as the most common and, where possible, suggest solutions for their elimination
