Revista da EMERJ - V. 21 - N. 2 - Maio/Agosto - 2019

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 21, n. 2, p. 40-51, Maio-Agosto, 2019  43 tion) as well as of violating the prohibition of offending human dignity (article 7 par. 2 Constitution). Furthermore, while protection of the debtor by establishing a list of objects that cannot be seized (articles 953 pars. 3-5, 982 par. 2 Code of Civil Procedure), until fairly recently was connected to the idea of humanism, contemporary procedural theory consecrates it as an institution constitu- tionally guaranteed. According to the principle of respect to human value (article 2 par. 1 Constitution), the institution of objects that cannot be seized must guarantee the minimum necessary for the debtor’s life. This guarantee is also derived by the social rights in a State, as for example the social right to health’s protection (article 21 par. 3 Constitution). Further- more, defining objects that cannot be seized also protects the debtor’s family, according to the constitutionally guaranteed social right to mar- riage and family’s protection (article 21 par. 1 Constitution) 8 . In all those cases, legal order has to weigh principles and rights al- ready constitutionally guaranteed. Since Greek Constitution does not fol- low an hierarchical order, as far as individual rights are concerned, weigh- ing of priorities is often an issue of factual circumstances and has to be done with objective criteria. The legislator has the competence to proceed to this weighing of principles and interests, while legislating, but it is the judge competent for the enforcement of a decision, he who has that duty, while interpreting the law. Abuse of right Greek case law as a rule denies the application of article 281 Civil Code in civil procedural law. This article provides that the exercise of a right is forbidden when it evidently supersedes the limits set by bona fide or bonos mores or the social or economic aim of the right. The situation changes when it is about abuse of right at the en- forcement procedure. In this case, the majority of courts do apply the article 281 Civil Code in order to set limits to the enforcement, setting forth as excuse, that the realization of the creditor’s claim against the debtor constitutes exercise of a substantive right belonging to public law. Sometimes they use in parallel the interpretative argument that article 281 8 P. Gesiou-Faltsi , The constitutional bases of the enforcement trials [ in Greek ], in: Procedural Legal Order. IV. Studies and legal opinions of law of enforcement of judgments , Athens - Thessaloniki 2009, 301, 307-308.