Housing accumulation fund refers to the long-term housing savings paid by employees and their units in accordance with the prescribed proportion. It is a personal housing fund for employees with security and interaction, which is owned by employees. Can the people's court enforce the housing provident fund stored in the account of the housing provident fund management center? In this regard, local courts have different understandings and practices. Because there is no specific provision in judicial interpretation, there are two diametrically opposite views on whether the housing provident fund can be enforced in the process of implementation. One view is that the housing provident fund is earmarked for special purposes, and no unit or individual can use it for other purposes. Housing accumulation fund cannot be used as the subject matter of the person being executed. The reason is that according to Article 5 of the State Council's Regulations on the Management of Housing Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), "housing provident fund should be used for employees to purchase, build, renovate and overhaul their own houses, and no unit or individual may use it for other purposes". Housing accumulation fund is the housing security fund for employees and a special fund for policy. When the people's court hears and executes relevant cases, it is against the provisions of the Regulations to seal up, freeze and deduct the housing provident fund to compensate the non-housing consumption debts of the parties and change the nature of the use of the housing provident fund. Therefore, according to Article 5 of the Regulations that "no unit or individual may use it for other purposes", it does not belong to the scope of use stipulated in the Regulations. Another view is that although the housing provident fund is a special fund, its ownership belongs to individuals. If an individual refuses to perform the effective judgment of the court, the court may take it as the object of enforcement. The reason is that the regulations stipulate that employees' housing provident fund is owned by individuals, and the Supreme People's Court clearly regards housing provident fund as the joint property of husband and wife in Interpretation of the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (II), and the housing provident fund does not belong to the scope prohibited by Article 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Attachment, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Execution of People's Courts.
The author agrees with the second view that housing provident fund can be used as the target of implementation. The reasons are as follows: 1. According to Article 3 of the State Council's Regulations on the Management of Housing Provident Fund, "the housing provident fund paid by individual employees and the housing provident fund paid by the employee's unit belong to individual employees", the housing provident fund paid by the person subjected to execution in the account of the housing provident fund management center belongs to the deposit owned by the person subjected to execution. Although it can only be used for special expenses, even if it is not used for housing expenses, it is still owned by individuals (transferred out or paid when retiring). Two. Article 11 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Marriage Law (II) explains the nature of housing provident fund: during the marriage relationship, the housing subsidies and housing provident fund actually obtained or should be obtained by both men and women belong to * * *. According to this regulation, during the marriage relationship, the housing subsidies and housing accumulation funds actually obtained or should be obtained by both men and women belong to * * *, and are divided according to * * * at the time of divorce. Therefore, the law recognizes that housing provident fund belongs to personal property before marriage and the same property after marriage, and determines the property attribute of housing provident fund. According to this attribute, housing provident fund can be included in the execution property. 3. Article 24 of the Regulations on the Management of Housing Provident Fund in the State Council stipulates that employees can withdraw the storage balance in their housing provident fund accounts under any of the following circumstances: purchase, construction, renovation and overhaul of self-occupied housing; Retired; Completely lose the ability to work and terminate the labor relationship with the unit; Settle abroad; Repay the principal and interest of house purchase; Rent exceeds the prescribed proportion of family wage income. There is no provision that the court has the right to withdraw, but the Regulations on the Management of Housing Provident Fund is an administrative regulation, which only lists the conditions that employees should have to withdraw housing provident fund, which is not contradictory to the court's implementation (not normal withdrawal). The civil procedure law gives the people's court the power of enforcement, and it is a compulsory measure to withdraw the housing accumulation fund through the force of law. Compared with the Regulations on the Management of Housing Provident Fund, the court's execution of the civil procedure law belongs to the superior law. According to the legal principle that the superior law is superior to the subordinate law, the relevant provisions of the civil procedure law should be applied, so the court has the right to take the housing provident fund as the object of execution. Four, housing provident fund does not belong to the scope of property tax exemption. The so-called immunity from execution property means that all the property of the person subjected to execution, including movable property, immovable property or other property rights, can be taken as the object of civil execution measures, and there should be no restrictions in principle. However, the law stipulates that the person subjected to execution has the right to be exempted from execution within a certain range of property, for reasons of safeguarding the basic right of existence of the person subjected to execution, or for reasons of maintaining good customs, or for reasons of social public interests. Article 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court Municipality on the Attachment, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Execution by People's Courts stipulates the following provisions on the property prohibited from attachment: (1) Articles necessary for family life such as clothes, furniture, cookers and tableware of the person subjected to execution and his dependents; (two) the necessary living expenses of the person subjected to execution and his dependents. Where there is a local minimum living standard, the necessary living expenses shall be determined according to this standard; (3) Articles necessary for the person subjected to execution and his dependents to complete compulsory education; (4) Unpublished inventions or works; (5) Auxiliary tools and medical supplies necessary for the physical defects of the person subjected to execution and his dependents; (six) medals and other honorary items obtained by the person subjected to execution; (7) Property exempted from sealing up, seizure and freezing in treaties, agreements and other documents concluded with foreign countries and international organizations in the name of People's Republic of China (PRC) government or People's Republic of China (PRC) government departments according to the provisions of the Procedure Law for Concluding Treaties in People's Republic of China (PRC); (eight) other property that may not be sealed up, detained or frozen according to laws or judicial interpretations. As can be seen from the above provisions, the housing provident fund does not belong to the scope of property exemption, and the court can enforce the housing provident fund as the enforcement subject. Five, the house purchased by the person subjected to execution with the housing provident fund can be used as the object of court execution under the condition of ensuring the basic housing conditions of the person subjected to execution. This leads to the situation that the monetary housing provident fund cannot be implemented, but the physical housing provident fund can be implemented. If so, it can only complicate the simple implementation, which is not conducive to reducing the implementation cost and improving the implementation efficiency, resulting in a great waste of limited implementation resources. Since the house purchased with the housing provident fund can be used as the subject of execution, the housing provident fund should be used as the object of execution under the condition of ensuring the basic living conditions of the executed person.