After the enactment of the Law of Government Administration implied the regulation concerning the execution of the Administrative Court Judgment. Some pro-cons academic and practice discourses, arguing that the enactment of the Law of Government Administration is the culminating point from the limited role of the Administrative Court on enforcing the administrative law and the argument that the regulation of the Law of Government Administration contains various ambiguities norms in concern with implementation in the Administrative Procedural Law System. This study aims to analyze and discuss concerning the regulation of the provisions of the Administrative Court Ruling execution, constrains in judgment execution and the legal certainty for the justice seekers in the provisions of the Administrative Court Ruling execution after the enactment of the Law of Government Administration. This paper is using a normative and empirical method. The data that using consisted of primary and secondary data, were analyzed using qualitative methods. This study result is presented in a descriptive analysis paper.
The article analyzes the legislative innovations concerning the enforcement of court decisions on the recovery of alimony in Ukraine. The author analyzes the appropriateness of introducing new powers for enforcement agents from the point of view of maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the society and the interests of the debtor.This issue is urgent because of recent amendments to the Law of Ukraine "On enforcement proceedings." In cases of recovering alimony, state enforcement agents have powers to ban the debtor to use cars, weapons, to hunt, to leave the territory of Ukraine. The danger of abuses by the enforcement agent in the process of execution decisions on the recovering of alimony was noted as a result of changing the order of judicial control in this category of cases from preliminary to the subsequent. These restrictions can be imposed without obligatory preliminary judicial control, as well as in other cases. The actions of enforcement agents to exercise these new powers can be reviewed only with facultative subsequent judicial control, which violates fair balance. The author has analyzed the court practice in appealing of the enforcement agent actions while exercising new powers, which shows that facultative subsequent judicial control still works.It is indicated that introducing new powers only to state enforcement agents is incorrect. This situation is only the fault of the legislator, because private enforcement agents have the right to execute court decisions on alimony recovery as well as state ones, but private enforcement agents do not have the same powers as state enforcement agents do. It can even be called discrimination of private enforcement agents. The amendments to the law are recommended to provide private enforcement agents with the same powers in cases of recovering alimony, as well as to state enforcement agents.In order to comply with the fair balance, it is proposed to extend the list of cases in which it is prohibited to apply restrictions on debtors in enforcement proceedings for the recovery of alimony.Article received 28.02.2019 ; У статті проведено аналіз законодавчих новел, що стосуються виконання судових рішень про стягнення аліментів. Розглянуто доречність запровадження нових повноважень для виконавців з погляду дотримання справедливого балансу між інтересами суспільства та інтересами боржника. Досліджено судову практику щодо оскарження дій виконавців під час здійснення ними нових повноважень. Вказано на неправильність надання нових прав виключно державним виконавцям. З метою дотримання справедливого балансу запропоновано розширити перелік випадків, за яких заборонено застосовувати обмеження щодо боржників у виконавчих провадженнях зі стягнення аліментів. Зазначено про небезпеку зловживань виконавцями під час виконання рішень про стягнення аліментів унаслідок зміни порядку судового контролю в цій категорії справ із попереднього на наступний. Рекомендовано внесення змін до законодавства для надання приватним виконавцям таких самих повноважень у провадженнях зі стягнення аліментів, як і державним виконавцям.Матеріал надійшов 28.02.2019
The article analyzes the legislative innovations concerning the enforcement of court decisions on the recovery of alimony in Ukraine. The author analyzes the appropriateness of introducing new powers for enforcement agents from the point of view of maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the society and the interests of the debtor.This issue is urgent because of recent amendments to the Law of Ukraine "On enforcement proceedings." In cases of recovering alimony, state enforcement agents have powers to ban the debtor to use cars, weapons, to hunt, to leave the territory of Ukraine. The danger of abuses by the enforcement agent in the process of execution decisions on the recovering of alimony was noted as a result of changing the order of judicial control in this category of cases from preliminary to the subsequent. These restrictions can be imposed without obligatory preliminary judicial control, as well as in other cases. The actions of enforcement agents to exercise these new powers can be reviewed only with facultative subsequent judicial control, which violates fair balance. The author has analyzed the court practice in appealing of the enforcement agent actions while exercising new powers, which shows that facultative subsequent judicial control still works.It is indicated that introducing new powers only to state enforcement agents is incorrect. This situation is only the fault of the legislator, because private enforcement agents have the right to execute court decisions on alimony recovery as well as state ones, but private enforcement agents do not have the same powers as state enforcement agents do. It can even be called discrimination of private enforcement agents. The amendments to the law are recommended to provide private enforcement agents with the same powers in cases of recovering alimony, as well as to state enforcement agents.In order to comply with the fair balance, it is proposed to extend the list of cases in which it is prohibited to apply restrictions on debtors in enforcement proceedings for the recovery of alimony.Article received 28.02.2019 ; У статті проведено аналіз законодавчих новел, що стосуються виконання судових рішень про стягнення аліментів. Розглянуто доречність запровадження нових повноважень для виконавців з погляду дотримання справедливого балансу між інтересами суспільства та інтересами боржника. Досліджено судову практику щодо оскарження дій виконавців під час здійснення ними нових повноважень. Вказано на неправильність надання нових прав виключно державним виконавцям. З метою дотримання справедливого балансу запропоновано розширити перелік випадків, за яких заборонено застосовувати обмеження щодо боржників у виконавчих провадженнях зі стягнення аліментів. Зазначено про небезпеку зловживань виконавцями під час виконання рішень про стягнення аліментів унаслідок зміни порядку судового контролю в цій категорії справ із попереднього на наступний. Рекомендовано внесення змін до законодавства для надання приватним виконавцям таких самих повноважень у провадженнях зі стягнення аліментів, як і державним виконавцям.Матеріал надійшов 28.02.2019
The article analyzes the legislative innovations concerning the enforcement of court decisions on the recovery of alimony in Ukraine. The author analyzes the appropriateness of introducing new powers for enforcement agents from the point of view of maintaining a fair balance between the interests of the society and the interests of the debtor.This issue is urgent because of recent amendments to the Law of Ukraine "On enforcement proceedings." In cases of recovering alimony, state enforcement agents have powers to ban the debtor to use cars, weapons, to hunt, to leave the territory of Ukraine. The danger of abuses by the enforcement agent in the process of execution decisions on the recovering of alimony was noted as a result of changing the order of judicial control in this category of cases from preliminary to the subsequent. These restrictions can be imposed without obligatory preliminary judicial control, as well as in other cases. The actions of enforcement agents to exercise these new powers can be reviewed only with facultative subsequent judicial control, which violates fair balance. The author has analyzed the court practice in appealing of the enforcement agent actions while exercising new powers, which shows that facultative subsequent judicial control still works.It is indicated that introducing new powers only to state enforcement agents is incorrect. This situation is only the fault of the legislator, because private enforcement agents have the right to execute court decisions on alimony recovery as well as state ones, but private enforcement agents do not have the same powers as state enforcement agents do. It can even be called discrimination of private enforcement agents. The amendments to the law are recommended to provide private enforcement agents with the same powers in cases of recovering alimony, as well as to state enforcement agents.In order to comply with the fair balance, it is proposed to extend the list of cases in which it is prohibited to apply restrictions on debtors in enforcement proceedings for the recovery of alimony.Article received 28.02.2019 ; У статті проведено аналіз законодавчих новел, що стосуються виконання судових рішень про стягнення аліментів. Розглянуто доречність запровадження нових повноважень для виконавців з погляду дотримання справедливого балансу між інтересами суспільства та інтересами боржника. Досліджено судову практику щодо оскарження дій виконавців під час здійснення ними нових повноважень. Вказано на неправильність надання нових прав виключно державним виконавцям. З метою дотримання справедливого балансу запропоновано розширити перелік випадків, за яких заборонено застосовувати обмеження щодо боржників у виконавчих провадженнях зі стягнення аліментів. Зазначено про небезпеку зловживань виконавцями під час виконання рішень про стягнення аліментів унаслідок зміни порядку судового контролю в цій категорії справ із попереднього на наступний. Рекомендовано внесення змін до законодавства для надання приватним виконавцям таких самих повноважень у провадженнях зі стягнення аліментів, як і державним виконавцям.Матеріал надійшов 28.02.2019
Post Constitutional Court's decision regarding the 'executory power' of fiduciary guarantees which changed the rules of the execution of fiduciary guarantees, for those who are in debtor positions, the Constitutional Court's decision may be a solution to the problem of constitutional rights. However, for financing business actors as creditors, the decision is certainly a new obstacle in doing business. This study aims to analyze the juridical implications of the Constitutional Court's decision on fiduciary agreements made before the Constitutional Court's Decision (MK), as well as the juridical implications of fiduciary agreements or on fiduciary executions that have been carried out before the MK Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. This study found that the ratio of the decision of the MK Decision Number: 18/PUU/XVII/2019 Regarding Fiduciary Guarantees does not apply the principle of balance and has no legal consequences for the fiduciary guarantee agreement made before the decision is enforced. Legislators are expected to make new legal provisions regarding the executorial status in the fiduciary guarantee agreement to provide legal certainty to the parties who will make a fiduciary guarantee agreement regarding whether or not the enforceability of execution in the fiduciary guarantee agreement is recognized.
Post Constitutional Court's decision regarding the 'executory power' of fiduciary guarantees which changed the rules of the execution of fiduciary guarantees, for those who are in debtor positions, the Constitutional Court's decision may be a solution to the problem of constitutional rights. However, for financing business actors as creditors, the decision is certainly a new obstacle in doing business. This study aims to analyze the juridical implications of the Constitutional Court's decision on fiduciary agreements made before the Constitutional Court's Decision (MK), as well as the juridical implications of fiduciary agreements or on fiduciary executions that have been carried out before the MK Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. This study found that the ratio of the decision of the MK Decision Number: 18/PUU/XVII/2019 Regarding Fiduciary Guarantees does not apply the principle of balance and has no legal consequences for the fiduciary guarantee agreement made before the decision is enforced. Legislators are expected to make new legal provisions regarding the executorial status in the fiduciary guarantee agreement to provide legal certainty to the parties who will make a fiduciary guarantee agreement regarding whether or not the enforceability of execution in the fiduciary guarantee agreement is recognized.
The article considered and analyzed the practice of the European court of human rights against Russia. Was revealed problems of realization of citizen's rights and juridical person, causes of emergence and ways to improve a legislation and law enforcement practice of the Russian Federation.
European Court of Human Rights states that the execution of final decisions is a compulsory provision for a fair hearing and a successful conlusion of a trial. The right to a court protected by Article 6 would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. Execution of a judgment given by any court, is considered to be an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6. Based on the Article 1 of European Convention for Human Rights member states of European Council are obligated to implement the the decisions of ECHR in their domestic legislation in the context of building an efficient legal system. This paper aimes to analyze the legal system of member states regarding the reinforcment of decisions looking forword to identify issues, commonalities and diferences among states. What is the procedure followed in the process of execution? What do we understand with "Reasonable timeframe" and which are the legal requirements in which are based "Concrete deadlines" within a judicial decision should be executed? What is the significance of the enforcment agents in this process?
The administrative decision is the most important mean of expressing the will of the public administration. Such decision is one of the important subject-matters of administrative law, which is distinguished by being flexible and developed, as in consequence, it fits to have the capacity for all recent developments of administrative life. The recent developments of administrative life impose on legal researchers to search for ideas and new means, where the electronic government is the most significant one, which enable the public administration to use recent technological means in order to provide its services to the public. This requires the administration to express its will through releasing its administrative decisions by using the same electronic means. We try through this research to deal with the most important subject-matter of the electronic administrative decision, which is the execution of such decision. The execution creates the legal consequences of such decision, where we have to analyze the essence of the electronic administrative decision and means of executing such decision against individuals and the administration itself.
Rechtfertigung für den Einschluß von Grundrechten (Bill of Rights) in eine zukünftige südafrikanische Verfassung. Auseinandersetzung mit der internationalen Debatte zu dieser Frage und Vergleich mit anderen Staaten. Diskussion über Schutz und Verletzung von Menschrechten in Afrika. Da zahlreiche Beispiel belegen, wie groß für einen Staat die Versuchung zu Machtmißbrauch ist, wird für Südafrika die Notwendigkeit des Einschlusses eines Menschenrechtskatalogs in die Verfassung betont. (DÜI-Hlb)
Fiduciary guarantees have existed in society since the Dutch colonial era because of the flexibility of objects that can be burdened with fiduciary guarantees, the more there is a need for legal certainty over fiduciary guarantees. The Fiduciary Guarantee Act (UUJF) requires registration of the imposition of fiduciary guarantees. Registration is carried out at the Fiduciary Registration Office with a working area covering the entire territory of the Republic of Indonesia and is within the scope of duties of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to obtain a fiduciary guarantee certificate. The fiduciary guarantee certificate contains the head of the decision which is interpreted as having the power of execution, so that the execution can be carried out immediately without going through a court and is final as described in Article 15 paragraph (2). In practice, this article often becomes a polemic in the community, causing acts against the law and even criminal acts when the fiduciary recipient wants to execute the fiduciary guarantee. After the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021, in its decision, it redefines Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the UUJF. This decision is an explanation and confirmation of the previous Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 /PUU-XVII/2019. This study will discuss the power of administering fiduciary guarantees after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021. With the research method using a statutory (normative) approach, as well as a conceptual approach, it is concluded that the execution clause in the fiduciary guarantee certificate does not change, only as a legal consequence arising from the decision of the Constitutional Court number 2/PUU-XIX/2021, namely the mechanism for implementing the guarantee certificate execution. Fiduciary is carried out by equating it with the mechanism for implementing the execution of a court decision that has permanent legal force (incracht), if the guarantor does not voluntarily surrender the object of the fiduciary guarantee under his control. In addition, there must be an agreement between the parties regarding the default. And in the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021 as an explanation and confirming the multiple interpretations in the public of the previous Constitutional Court decision, that the execution of a fiduciary guarantee certificate through a court decision is an alternative that can be taken in the event that there is no agreement between the creditor and the the debtor, both in relation to default and the voluntary surrender of the object of guarantee from the debtor to the creditor. The default clause must be specified in the principal agreement or in the fiduciary guarantee certificate.
