The execution procedure in the Republic of Croatia plays a key role in ensuring the collection of debts owed to creditors in situations where debtors fail to meet their obligations. This thesis analyzes the implementation of execution through two legal frameworks: the Execution Act (EA) and the General Tax Act (GTA). While the EA regulates general civil law relationships between individuals and legal entities, the GTA primarily deals with the collection of tax debts and pertains to obligations of taxpayers. This paper offers a comparative analysis of these laws, focusing on their similarities and differences in the interpretation and execution of execution, with the aim of understanding their impact on creditors and debtors. The introductory part of the thesis provides a historical overview of the development of the execution procedure, from the ecclesiastical courts that resolved debt-related disputes in the Middle Ages to the modernization of the legal system in the 19th century. This historical development has led to more complex and efficient execution methods, allowing for a more humane approach towards debtors. The content of the thesis is organized to simultaneously follow both laws in their normative provisions, from the participants in the procedure, to principles, jurisdiction, initiation and implementation of execution, as well as its suspension, postponement and conclusion, extraordinary legal remedies, and limitation periods. Through the analysis of both laws, the thesis highlights several key differences in their implementation. According to the EA, any creditor can initiate execution proceedings by submitting a proposal to the court or a public notary. In contrast, the tax execution procedure under the GTA is initiated exclusively by the Tax Administration ex officio when taxpayers fail to fulfill their obligations. This difference is also reflected in the parties involved in the procedure – while under the EA, execution creditors can be any natural or legal person, under the GTA, this is always a tax authority. Regarding the subjects of execution, both laws cover similar types of assets, including monetary claims, real estate, movable property, and property rights. However, the GTA provides for stricter and faster collection of tax debts, whereas the EA allows for a broader spectrum of options for creditors and debtors in the context of civil debts. Moreover, the legal remedies available in both procedures, although similar in nature, reflect different approaches to the rights of creditors and debtors. The GTA emphasizes the efficiency of collection, while the EA offers more space for contestation and protection of debtors. In conclusion, the comparative analysis shows that although the EA and the GTA share fundamental principles, their implementation reflects different priorities – while the EA is focused on civil debts, the GTA is aimed at the rapid and effective collection of taxes. This analysis can serve as a basis for improving legal frameworks to achieve a better balance between the protection of creditor and debtor rights and a more effective execution process in both systems.