Unfortunately all fears regarding application of the Law on State Guarantees regarding Implementation of Court Rulings have proven justified and the procedure for enforcing rulings where the State is in debt has largely remained on paper.

For example, the Law states that the court ruling should stipulate that the money is to be taken from the State body. However the courts and State bodies have begun interpreting that in their own way. They believe that obliging them to carry out certain actions and ordering them to pay the money are not quite the same thing as simply extracting the money. Accordingly such court rulings need to be enforced according to old procedure the inefficiency of which has been demonstrated on a number of occasions.

From representatives of the authorities one very often hears advice to approach the court in order to get the method and procedure for enforcement of court rulings changed.  Or more simply to change the word “oblige” to “extract”. However court practice has demonstrated the opposite. Courts have begun rejecting such cases on a large scale referring to an explanation given by the High Administrative Court in information letter 1483/12/13-12.

There still remains the possibility set out in Article 7 of the Law on State Guarantees regarding Implementation of Court Rulings. This states that if a court ruling has not been enforced within two months from the day that the ruling was issued initiating writ proceedings, the State Bailiff must apply to the court to have the method and procedure for enforcement of the ruling changed.

Yet once again all such applications from the State Bailiffs to have the method and procedure for enforcement of the ruling changed are not upheld.

The following cases provide confirmation of this.

№ 537/2255/13-аА http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/31374881,  

№547/649/13-ц http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/31428777,

№712/1315/13-а http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/30096330.

Those isolated cases where the first instance court issues a positive ruling are later quashed by the court of appeal. An example of this can be seen here:

http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/29553691.

There is only one possibility remaining with this having previously been ineffective in such a category of cases. This is precisely enforcement of those rulings in accordance with the Law on Implementing Proceedings without application of the specific features set out in the method and procedure for enforcement of the Law on State Guarantees regarding Implementation of Court Rulings.

Thus, the use of provisions of the Law on State Guarantees regarding Implementation of Court Rulings is at present effectively prevented by current court practice and the lack of official explanations from State bodies regarding application of these provisions.

Bearing in mind the above, the existence of procedure for enforcement of domestic court rulings as set out in the Law on State Guarantees regarding Implementation of Court Rulings can in no way resolve the systemic problem of lengthy non-enforcement of court rulings in Ukraine. It moreover only confuses people who are trying to get their court rulings enforced. Thus the only way of getting court rulings enforced is by applying to the European Court of Human Rights.

Responses from the Justice Ministry and State Treasury regarding application of the Law on State Guarantees regarding Implementation of Court Rulings are provided here  Новый документ 26 Новый документ 27