Suchergebnisse

This article studies the essence of the basic remuneration in comparison with the enforcement fee, the specifics of their collection during the formation of enforcement proceeding laws during the independence of Ukraine and their evolution into "enforcement sanction" − a common term for these two concepts introduced by the new draft law "On Enforcement of Decisions". It has been determined in the article that the basic remuneration of the private executers is collected in the manner prescribed for the collection of the enforcement fee. Therefore, the enforcement fee and the basic remuneration of the private executers are defined mostly as identical concepts. However, it is sometimes unacceptable to apply the enforcement fee rules to the basic remuneration, in particular, in the event of exemption from payment of the enforcement fee, when lien is put on property to secure claims, or when the enforcement fee is refunded due to revocation of the court order, which is confirmed at the level of judicial practice.It is summarized that the enforcement fee and the basic remuneration are, first of all, fees for decisions enforcement, and, at the same time, they serve as punishment for the debtor's failure to execute the decision voluntarily (before the enforcement document is delivered) and encourage the defender to execute the decision voluntarily without the involvement of law enforcement agencies. The article positively points out the dualistic legal nature of these funds and the preservation of this nature in the new draft law in the context of the enforcement sanction and specifies which regulation features of this nature should be improved. For instance, in the article it is considered to be appropriate to reduce the enforcement sanction, if the debtor executes the court order himself within a short period from the beginning of the order enforcement or if the enforcement document is returned or the order enforcement is terminated without actual execution. Кeywords: means of enforcement proceedings, the amount of recovery, actual execution, return of the enforcement document, termination of enforcement proceedings.

his article aims to study the legal essence of the executive fee and the private executer basic remuneration in enforcement proceedings. The article also clarifies the issues that arise in connection with the extension onto the private executer basic remuneration of legal rules related to executive fee, as well as outlines the shortcomings of relevant legislation rules and proposals aimed at improving their legal regulation. It is exposed that, in contrast to the shortcomings executive fee, the basic fee collection in fact remains unsufficiently regulated by law, as it is subject to the same approaches as the executive fee that does not always seem correct. At the doctrinal level, the executive fee and the basic remuneration are not separated in their essential content and are considered either as payment by the debtor for the enforcement actions that executer performs, either as a penalty for the failure to follow benevolently the enforcement document requirements. Such a dual legal nature of the executive fee and the basic remuneration as laid down by the legislator conceptually causes several problems in practice, some of which are discussed in the article. The conditions of executive fee (basic remuneration) collection as established in court practice and taken into account while elaborating this study conclusions, are also analyzed. The article states that the approach to the identification of the executive fee and the basic remuneration as analogues is incorrect, because under the existing legal field it is impossible to establish equal positioning for public and private executers. The legal essence of a private executer's basic remuneration requires in some cases the existence of a slightly different legal regulation than this applied to the executive fee. Here the basis shall refer to the fact that a private executer performs required executive actions, which should be followed by that executer remuneration. Based on this study results, possible options for resolving the issues on collecting the private executer basic remuneration are proposed.

The article addresses a systemic analysis of legislative changes under conditions of martial law in the sphere of the enforcement of decisions. The target is to analyse the separate novelties and prohibitions which were introduced or going to be introduced concerning their reasonableness and appropriateness. General and special scientific methods were used to achieve stated aim, namely dialectical, comparative and analytical, which jointly allowed the authors to find answers for the questions outlined. In the research particular features of the enforcement of decisions in modern conditions were highlighted, the consequences of establishing restrictive measures and changes for participants in enforcement proceedings and the government as a whole were analysed. It is justified that the system of the enforcement of decisions from the day of the invasion goes through a though point and is in stagnation. In fact, private executors remain without work, payment for it, while they have to hold offices, pay wages to their assistants. Creditors remain unprotected as they are not able to restore their rights and satisfy their demands due to continued absence of access for executors to Automated system of enforcement proceedings, suspension of state registers' work, suspension of realization electronic tradings, and also established limits relating to pursue assets to wages and other types of debtor income, moratoriums on implementation decisions about some debtors, while creditor might also remain without work and expect to return at least debt. Even a debtor can feel negative consequences of absence of conditions to implement decisions and a corresponding end of implementing decisions with an opportunity to remove coercive measures, which are applied to him, and ensure the enforcement of the decision. Circumstances, which were mentioned, led to the urgent need in resolving relevant problems of the enforcement of decisions through experiencing new mechanisms and using other means to accomplish their features and cooperation with other authorities. Particularly, unlocking a work for private executors, providing the same conditions of access to procedural means to implement decisions on an equal basis with state executors, optimising the rules of the provision of executive documents, solving questions on extraterritoriality etc.