Contact center of the Ukrainian Judiciary 044 207-35-46
Conducting a check by the enforcement officer during enforcement proceedings regarding the debtor’s performance of a court decision is not of an imperative nature, but constitutes a discretionary power of the enforcement officer and, accordingly, is not a mandatory procedural action in every case.
The legislator does not link the adoption of a resolution on the seizure of property (funds) with the enforcement officer’s conducting a check on the debtor’s performance of the decision subject to compulsory enforcement.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reached these conclusions in a case concerning an administrative claim filed by a Public Joint-Stock Company seeking to recognize as unlawful and cancel the state enforcement officer’s resolution imposing an arrest on the monetary funds of its separate structural subdivision.
The plaintiff claimed that the disputed resolution was unlawful because the total amount of the plaintiff’s debt in the consolidated enforcement proceedings was lower than stated in the resolution, due to partial voluntary payment of the debt.
The courts of previous instances granted the claim, reasoning that during enforcement proceedings the enforcement officer is obliged to check the debtors’ performance of decisions and to seize only the amount of funds corresponding to the recovery amount, in order to ensure real enforcement of the decision.
Having analyzed the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that pursuant to Clause 1 of Part 3 of Article 18 of the Law, within the framework of enforcement proceedings, the legislator grants the enforcement officer the power to verify the performance by debtors of decisions subject to compulsory enforcement under this Law.
The performance of such a check is the right of the enforcement officer, the exercise of which depends on his/her discretion, and not an imperatively mandatory action in every enforcement proceeding or before every procedural enforcement action.
In addition, the Law establishes clear and short deadlines for the enforcement officer to adopt a resolution on the seizure of the debtor’s property (funds). Under these conditions, the seizure of the debtor’s property (funds) is a procedural action of a securing nature and is performed by the enforcement officer automatically, without a prior check on the debtor’s performance of the decision within the meaning of Clause 1 of Part 3 of Article 18 of the Law, since the application of this measure is directly linked to the occurrence of a specific legal fact (opening of enforcement proceedings or discovery of property).
The absence of such a check in itself does not indicate a violation by the enforcement officer of the principles of impartiality, effectiveness, timeliness, and completeness of enforcement actions in enforcement proceedings.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court also noted that the legislator has defined a mechanism for the enforcement officer to obtain up-to-date information on the status of the performance of decisions by debtors in the case of their voluntary full or partial performance: the parties to the enforcement proceedings are responsible for promptly informing the enforcement officer by mandatory notification of such circumstances.
Therefore, the courts of previous instances reached an erroneous conclusion regarding the enforcement officer’s obligation to verify the performance of decisions by debtors before imposing an arrest and did not establish the fact that the debtor had submitted documents confirming the payment of part of the debt before the adoption of the resolution on seizure.
Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated December 18, 2025, in case No. 580/3888/24 – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132746774.
This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.
_03_03.png)