Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
When it comes to the enforcement system, in one way or another, the debate opens regarding the dilemma of which practice or enforcement system is more effective. Unfortunately, the answer is a bit complicated. Firstly, we can say that the most applied forms are the private enforcement system, the judicial system, and the mixed one, leaving the administrative system as a less applied form. The choice of one enforcement system before another is not implicated by international entities. It's rather a matter of taste or a suggestion of national experts who deal with analysis within the idea of a ''more effective judicial system''. Almost all the states in the region, except Bosnia and Herzegovina, have made efforts and achieved a degree of privatization of their enforcement systems. The official positions of the states in the region are that they have accepted the privatization of enforcement and relieved the burden from the courts! However, we consider that in all states of the region, there are controversial dilemmas in terms of the role of the bailiff, the enforcement powers, the conditions for the election of the bailiff, and the significant role that the courts continue to have in the enforcement process. Among other things, this research deals with the advantages and disadvantages of each enforcement system and the specific institutes that have been included in the respective systems, such as preparation for the fulfillment of the debtor's obligation in two months (the case of Croatia), higher enforcement fees (the case of RNM), the criteria for the appointment of enforcement officers are much lower (the case of Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro), etc.
Bukurije Etemi-Ademi (Wed,) studied this question.