• Українською
  • Reform of the Execution of Judgements

    This reform is focused on protecting the public through compulsory enforcement of court decisions, upgrade of the state enforcement service, and provision of private enforcement services to eventually put in place a “mixed” system for the enforcement of court decisions.

    Why change anything? 

    Evasion of voluntary execution of court decisions, poor specialization and business process automation, no effective public enforcement officer motivation system, endemic gaps in the interaction among public enforcement officers and other governmental and non-governmental institutions are to name but a few barriers to the effective enforcement of court decisions.

    It should be mentioned that before the onset of the reform the rate of execution of court decisions stood at a mere 6%, while the total value of unenforced judgements in civil cases was almost UAH 400 billion. Such an extremely low percentage of enforced judgements is one of the main barriers to both the establishment of the rule of law and the effective operation of the judiciary.

    What is the reform about?

    1. Facilitating the voluntary execution of judgements

    The objective of the reform is to make debtors aware of the inevitability of liability for their acts, and hence make them understand that a failure to execute judgements voluntarily will lead to a higher cost to their purse.

    It is planned to set up a motivation system whereby disputes are settled without recourse to the State Enforcement Service. Raising legal awareness, promoting the positive image of the State Enforcement Service and private enforcement officers, providing for the regulation of expert activities, and putting in place such mechanisms as consent for the execution of judgements and alternative judgement enforcement options are the main tools to achieve this objective.

    2. Carrying out the enforcement actions in a timely, competent and quality manner

    This objective is to be achieved through process automation, in particular through the interaction of the State Enforcement Service with registries and other authorities and institutions. This includes granting officers of the State Enforcement Service access to real estate and vehicle registers.

    In addition, the reform envisions document flow automation so that public enforcement officers are in receipt of debtors’ files within the shortest timeframe possible while the public is given the opportunity to use the state enforcement services in a prompt and quality manner.  It is also planned to reduce the burden on public enforcement officers by divesting them of functions that have no relevance to their duties and by motivating them to improve their professional competencies through competition with private enforcements professionals as well as career and financial incentives.

    3. Promoting openness and social orientation of the State Enforcement Service  

    Publicity, openness, transparency and accountability towards society are the requirements that face the enforcement service. They can be met by having in place mobile and automated services and service centres where people can get appropriate advice without having to visit the State Enforcement Service, and by developing the quality standards and monitoring enforcement officers’ performance efficiency.

    What changes have been brought about by the reform to date?

    • Access to learning a private enforcement officer’s profession granted
    • A system to monitor and oversee the activities and operations of private enforcement officers set up
    • Public enforcement officers had their qualification upskilled and performance improved
    • An integrated information system of enforcement process set up
    • A Unified Register of Debtors put in place
    • Proper enforcement of court decisions to recover unpaid child maintenance and wages ensured

    Key aims and objectives for the year

    One of the reform’s key objectives is to implement a new, socially oriented model of the State Enforcement Service. The plans are to continue carrying out effective enforcement measures against debtors and shaping special knowledge, skills and abilities of the State Enforcement Service’s staff. The expected deliverable is a possibility to expose debtors to the most effective enforcement measures and raising the efficiency of child maintenance and wage arrears recovery.

    A focus will also remain on further development of private enforcement services to reduce the burden on public enforcement offices and increase the number of court decisions enforced.

    Those working on the reform include

    The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Council of Europe, EU-funded Pravo-Justice Project, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)


    Useful documents and links