Виконання судових рішень про стягнення аліментів в Україні: аналіз актуальних питань
Loading...
Date
2019
Authors
Іщенко, Денис
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
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.
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.
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.
Description
Keywords
примусове виконання рішень, виконавче провадження, державний виконавець, приватний виконавець, цивільний процес, стягнення аліментів, судовий контроль, справедливий баланс, стаття, enforced execution of court decisions, enforcement proceedings, state enforcement agent, private enforcement agent, civil process, recovery of alimony, judicial control, fair balance
Citation
Іщенко Д. Ю. Виконання судових рішень про стягнення аліментів в Україні: аналіз актуальних питань / Іщенко Д. Ю. // Наукові записки НаУКМА. Юридичні науки. - 2019. - Т. 3. - С. 63-69.