Правові аспекти розгляду судами України подань щодо примусового проникнення до житла чи іншого володіння боржника у виконавчому провадженні
Loading...
Date
2018
Authors
Іщенко, Денис
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
У статті проведено аналіз судової практики судів України щодо розгляду подань виконавців про
примусове проникнення до житла боржника чи іншого володіння фізичної особи. Надано конкретні
приклади судової практики, які ілюструють розгляд подань виконавців. Автор наводить критику цих
судових рішень. На основі судової практики було виявлено наявність структурної проблеми судів
України у питанні тлумачення норм Закону України "Про виконавче провадження" щодо повідомлення боржника про початок примусового виконання рішень. З’ясовано причини складнощів подолання
порушення принципу правової визначеності при вирішенні питань щодо примусового проникнення до
житла боржника. Встановлено, що суди при розгляді подань виконавців вимагають від виконавців надати докази вчинення дій, які виконавці не зобов’язані здійснювати відповідно до нормативно-правової бази діяльності виконавців. Автором визначено, які обставини мають бути встановлені судом під
час розгляду подань виконавців про примусове проникнення до житла боржника.
The article analyzes the court practice of courts of Ukraine regarding submissions of enforcement agents on forced entering to the debtor’s dwelling or other property. On the basis of court practice, the existence of a structural problem of the courts of Ukraine in the matter of interpretation of the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On enforcement proceedings” was revealed regarding the debtor’s notification of existing of enforcement proceeding. It was established that courts while considering submissions of enforcement agents require enforcement agents to provide evidence of proof of the debtor’s notification of enforcement proceedings actions that the enforcement agents are not obliged to carry out in accordance with the legal framework. The courts do not properly interpret article 28 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, which stipulates that the debtor is deemed to be informed about the opening of enforcement proceeding if the resolution on opening the enforcement proceeding is sent to the debtor’s address stated in the writ of execution with a registered letter with a return receipt. Nevertheless, the courts even after the citation of the norm of article 28 of the Law, which directly specifies the fiction of the notice the debtor on the enforcement proceedings, still does not apply it, but require proof of the debtor’s notification of enforcement proceedings, which is not provided for by law. The situation is complicated by the fact that cases on submissions of enforcement agents on forced entering to debtor’s dwelling are not reviewed by the Supreme Court; therefore, it is impossible to develop a unified practice in this cases. In most cases, courts dismiss the submissions of enforcement agents on the basis of abovementioned reasons, which are inappropriate. While considering abovementioned submissions the court has to establish all actions of enforcement agents. If the enforcement agent carried out all possible actions with no or minimum result, it is the reason for the court to allow the submission and permit the enforcement agent to enter to debtor’s dwelling or other property using force as a last resort.
The article analyzes the court practice of courts of Ukraine regarding submissions of enforcement agents on forced entering to the debtor’s dwelling or other property. On the basis of court practice, the existence of a structural problem of the courts of Ukraine in the matter of interpretation of the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On enforcement proceedings” was revealed regarding the debtor’s notification of existing of enforcement proceeding. It was established that courts while considering submissions of enforcement agents require enforcement agents to provide evidence of proof of the debtor’s notification of enforcement proceedings actions that the enforcement agents are not obliged to carry out in accordance with the legal framework. The courts do not properly interpret article 28 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, which stipulates that the debtor is deemed to be informed about the opening of enforcement proceeding if the resolution on opening the enforcement proceeding is sent to the debtor’s address stated in the writ of execution with a registered letter with a return receipt. Nevertheless, the courts even after the citation of the norm of article 28 of the Law, which directly specifies the fiction of the notice the debtor on the enforcement proceedings, still does not apply it, but require proof of the debtor’s notification of enforcement proceedings, which is not provided for by law. The situation is complicated by the fact that cases on submissions of enforcement agents on forced entering to debtor’s dwelling are not reviewed by the Supreme Court; therefore, it is impossible to develop a unified practice in this cases. In most cases, courts dismiss the submissions of enforcement agents on the basis of abovementioned reasons, which are inappropriate. While considering abovementioned submissions the court has to establish all actions of enforcement agents. If the enforcement agent carried out all possible actions with no or minimum result, it is the reason for the court to allow the submission and permit the enforcement agent to enter to debtor’s dwelling or other property using force as a last resort.
Description
Keywords
примусове виконання рішень, ухвала суду, виконавець, цивільний процес, стаття, enforced execution of decisions, court order, enforcement agent, civil process
Citation
Іщенко Д. Ю. Правові аспекти розгляду судами україни подань щодо примусового проникнення до житла чи іншого володіння боржника у виконавчому провадженні / Іщенко Д. Ю. // Наукові записки НаУКМА. Юридичні науки. - 2018. - Т. 2. - С. 93-98.