Unlike most modern legislations, Qatari law allows the plaintiff to obtain a court order preventing the defendant from leaving the country. Preventing someone from travelling restricts their freedom and limits their right to reside and move, a right guaranteed by Article 36 of the Constitution.
What is a travel ban? It is primarily a precautionary measure to prevent a debtor from fleeing, serving as temporary protection granted by the court to the creditor. According to Article 405 of the Civil Procedures Law, the conditions for issuing a travel ban include serious reasons to fear that the debtor might flee or hide their assets, and the request must be submitted through a well-justified petition.
Once the travel ban is issued, it remains in effect until the debtor fulfils their obligation to the creditor. Article 405 allows the debtor to appeal the order and request its cancellation if they deposit the debt amount in court, provide adequate security, or if strong reasons for cancellation exist.
The main purpose of the travel ban seems to be to prevent the defendant from evading the case, especially since many litigants in Qatar are foreigners with temporary residency. It also serves as a means to ensure the fulfilment of obligations. Professor Fathi Ghali notes that the travel ban is a tool to coerce the debtor into repayment. However, is it required that the debtor be capable of repayment to justify a travel ban?
For example, one of the known methods of coercing debtors is imprisonment, a form of indirect enforcement. Imprisonment aims to overcome the debtor’s resistance when they refuse to fulfil an obligation despite being able to do so. Threatening imprisonment often compels the debtor to comply. If the debtor’s financial solvency is confirmed, they are imprisoned until repayment; if insolvency is proven, they are not imprisoned. Therefore, if the defendant is insolvent, they should not be banned from travelling, following general principles that require the measure to be necessary.
The travel ban should not be imposed merely because the debtor has failed to fulfil their obligation. As stated in the article, there must be a genuine fear of flight based on serious grounds. The mere intention of the debtor to travel does not constitute such grounds; the travel must be with the intent to evade the case.
In conclusion, the travel ban is an exceptional measure not adopted by most modern legislation. It is implemented due to practical realities since most residents are foreigners. Therefore, the interpretation of the law permitting it should not be expanded beyond its intended scope.
