The warrant of execution had been issued by a court official without “judicial oversight”, which, per a Constitutional Court decision in 2004, is necessary whenever a debtor is being deprived of his/her only access to “adequate housing”. The court itself – not a court official - must then consider whether such deprivation is justifiable in the particular circumstances, putting at risk the creditor’s chances of recovery.

However the Court in this case upheld the execution sale, making it clear that “luxury” or “holiday” homes would not enjoy this constitutional protection. The residence in question was a second house occupied not by the debtor himself (he resided in his other house), but by other occupants, and his creditor was therefore free to proceed as he did.