Expected strategic result 2.1.4.4. The system of enforcement of court decisions has been improved

Information about ESR Feedback from the public
Progress in the implementation of measures as of 21.11.2024
measures, the implementation of which as of 30.09.2024
3 1 1
5
In progress Not implemented Not started
Measures implemented (fully and partially) - 0 ( 0%)
Display in tabular form

Measures — 5

2.1.4.4.1. Supporting the consideration of the Draft Law of Ukraine On Enforcement of Decisions (registration number 5660 dated June 14, 2021) in the Parliament of Ukraine (particularly if the President of Ukraine vetoes the draft law)

The main implementer: Ministry of Justice of Ukraine

2.1.4.4.2. Ensuring the connection of banks to the automated system of enforcement proceedings to enable information exchange and ensure automated freezing of funds in accounts of debtors

The main implementer: State Enterprise "National Information Systems"

2.1.4.4.3. Drafting and submitting to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine a draft law that:
1) implements efficient and effective judicial control over the enforcement of court decisions;
2) implements effective procedures for determining or changing the method or procedure of enforcement of decisions unrelated to property;
3) improves the procedure of enforcement of decisions that obligate the debtor to act or refrain from acting in a certain way;
4) revises and revokes unjustified moratoriums on the enforcement of decisions in which state-owned enterprises are named as debtors;
5) improves the procedure for enforcement of decisions of international arbitration courts in Ukraine.

The main implementer: Ministry of Justice of Ukraine

2.1.4.4.4. Implementing a Unified State Register of Enforcement Documents taking into account the architecture requirements for subsequent application of data array technologies

The main implementer: State Judicial Administration of Ukraine

2.1.4.4.5. Ensuring the data exchange and interoperability between the Automated System of Enforcement Proceedings and the Unified State Register of Enforcement Documents

The main implementer: State Judicial Administration of Ukraine

Indicators — 4

Evaluation of achievement of ESR — indicator weight —
1
0 / 50%

A law has taken effect, which:
a) envisages further digitalization of the enforcement processes, in particular, the mandatory connection of banks to the data exchange system through the automated system of enforcement proceedings to ensure automated seizure of debtors’ funds in their accounts (8 percent);
b) improves the procedure of enforcement of decisions that obligate the debtor to act or refrain from acting in a certain way (7 percent);
c) introduces efficient and effective judicial control over the enforcement of court decisions (7 percent);
d) implements effective procedures for determining or changing the method or procedure of enforcement of decisions unrelated to property (7 percent);
e) revises and revokes unjustified moratoriums on the enforcement of decisions in which state-owned enterprises are named as debtors (7 percent);
f) expands possibilities for enforcement of decisions by private enforcement officers (7 percent);
g) improves the procedure for enforcement of decisions of international arbitration courts in Ukraine (7 percent).

2
0 / 20%

The Unified State Register of Enforcement Documents has been put into commercial operation, taking into account the architecture requirements for subsequent application of data array technologies.

3
0 / 20%

Data exchange and interoperability between the Unified State Register of Enforcement Documents and the Automated System of Enforcement Proceedings have been introduced.

4
0 / 10%

at least 80 percent of justice experts estimate that:
a) the enforcement processes are completely or mostly efficient and effective (in particular, owing to digitalization) (3 percent);
b) legislative provisions completely or mostly prevent the parties from abusing their rights during enforcement proceedings in a balanced manner and without prejudice to the legitimate interests of these parties (3 percent);
c) the legislation does not impose unjustified moratoriums on the enforcement of decisions in which state-owned enterprises are named as debtors (2 percent);
d) the scope of activities of private enforcement officers is defined fully or optimally for the most part (2 percent).

* - certain measures are common to several ESRs, but have a separate number (id)