Agreeing with the Government's Proposal on the necessity of promulgating the Law amending and supplementing a number of articles of the Law on Property Auction, the delegates said: The amendment aims to institutionalize the Party's viewpoints and policies on perfecting the legal system. The project dossier is fully prepared, in compliance with the requirements and procedures of the Law on promulgation of legal documents, and is eligible to be submitted to the National Assembly at this 6th Session.
Commenting on the Draft Law, delegate Trang A Duong (Ha Giang) stated that Article 4 stipulates 18 groups of assets in 18 groups of fields to be auctioned. This provision is too broad and general. In reality, these legal documents are very complicated, with contradictions and overlaps, so in some cases it is difficult to determine which assets must be auctioned. This can easily lead to management violations when the law has unclear content.
Therefore, the delegate suggested that the drafting agency should review and express Article 4 more clearly and add a provision stating that "The Government shall specify this in detail to have a solid legal basis for implementation". In addition, it is suggested to study and add content on car license plate auctions after Clause 4; clarify the provisions on bad debt in auctions...
Sharing the same view, there are opinions suggesting to adjust the provisions in Article 4 on auctioned assets in the direction of not listing them as in the draft Law, because this can easily lead to duplication or overlap, conflict when the law regulating specialized fields has to be amended and supplemented. At the same time, it is difficult to predict all new types of assets that will arise in the future.
At the discussion session, the majority of opinions agreed with the addition of regulations on the National Property Auction Portal in the Draft Law to comply with the requirements of digital transformation in property auction activities. However, there were opinions suggesting to study and supplement regulations on the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice in managing the National Property Auction Portal such as: information security during the process of organizing property auctions online; storing information for the purpose of searching, monitoring, supervising, checking, inspecting, auditing, etc. In addition, it was suggested to study regulations on socialization of the National Property Auction Portal with the participation of enterprises to enhance competitiveness, transparency and service quality.
Discussing the amendment and supplement of bidding in the case of auctions using the ascending price method (point b, clause 14, Article 1 of the draft amending and supplementing point d, clause 2, Article 42 of the 2016 Law on Property Auction), delegate Pham Thi Minh Hue (Soc Trang) said: The draft stipulates that “in case two or more people pay the highest price, the auctioneer will organize a further auction among those who pay the highest price to select the auction winner. If all the people with the highest price do not agree to continue bidding, the auctioneer will organize a draw to select the auction winner. If among those with the highest price, there is someone who continues to bid, the auctioneer will issue a bid slip to that person. The auctioneer will announce that person as the auction winner if that person pays a higher price.”
The delegate said that to ensure strictness, the proposed adjustment is that "in case two or more people pay the highest price, the auctioneer will continue to bid among the highest bidders to select the auction winner. If among the highest bidders, someone continues to bid, the auctioneer will issue a bid slip to that person. The auctioneer will announce that person as the auction winner if he or she pays a higher price. If all the highest bidders do not agree to continue bidding, the auctioneer will organize a draw to select the auction winner."
Regarding the content of Clause 2, Article 73 of the draft, it states: "In case of canceling the auction result as prescribed in Clause 3 and Clause 4, Article 72 of this Law, the property owner shall cancel the decision approving the auction result, cancel the contract for sale and purchase of auctioned assets, cancel the auctioned asset sale and purchase contract or request the Court to cancel or declare the auctioned asset sale and purchase contract invalid as prescribed by law", delegate Pham Minh Hue suggested that the drafting agency continue to consider and study adjustments in the direction that "the cancellation of the decision approving the auction result will be carried out by the agency that approved the auction result".
Regarding auction training, delegates said that according to the report, one of the limitations and shortcomings in the implementation of the Law on Property Auction is that "A number of auctioneers are still limited in terms of professional qualifications, expertise, and practice skills; updating legal knowledge and skills of the auctioneers has not been done regularly".
In order to have a basis for considering and deciding to remove this provision, it is necessary to summarize and clearly evaluate whether this "part" mainly falls into cases exempted from auction training or not. At the same time, evaluate the impact of removing this provision, because if the provision on exemption from training is removed, it will not attract people with knowledge and practical experience in the field of justice and judicial assistance to participate in property auction activities. Currently, some laws in the field of judicial assistance also have provisions on exemption from training for some cases, such as the Law on Lawyers and the Law on Notaries.
Regarding the amendment and supplementation of some clauses of Article 9 (prohibited acts), delegates said that this is necessary to increase publicity and transparency, ensuring the rights and obligations of relevant parties in asset auction activities. However, it is recommended to consider the feasibility of the regulation "disclosing information about auction registrants for the purpose of profiteering" because determining "for the purpose of profiteering" is very difficult to implement. Therefore, this phrase should be removed to ensure the feasibility of the regulation that one of the prohibited acts is "disclosing information about auction registrants".
Source
Comment (0)