ATYPICAL EXECUTIVE MEASURES AND THEIR LIMITS

Abstract

Atypical executive measures play a fundamental role in maintaining the law, as it would be an impossible task for the legislator to imagine all the possibilities arising from conflicts resulting from human relations, it would also be of little value if the state, when resolving the dispute, did not impose its coercive force due to the lack of legislation to support such a right. With that in mind, the legislator delegated to the jurisdictional power the possibility of acting in a discretionary manner, while seeking the appropriate measure that it deems necessary for the sentence passed to be fulfilled, even if for that purpose it is necessary to suppress some right of the executed person with the intention of to force the solvency of the obligation. However, the jurisdictional power, when exercising this form of execution, must obey some normative postulates so that these impositions do not fall into arbitrariness or serve as revenge on the part of the creditor. This work brings considerations about the atypicality in the execution and the legal support where they are climbed. The research method used here is exploratory, based on doctrine, jurisprudence and law. The conclusion reached was that although the legislator has made it possible for the jurisdictional power to take measures that it deems necessary so that the process has its purpose achieved, for it to take advantage of such an institute, it must maintain compliance with the principles postulated in the legal system, otherwise it will fall in arbitration having its purpose tainted.