Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.41 N° 78
Julio
Septiembre
2023
Recibido el 21/03/23 Aceptado el 19/05/23
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 41, Nº 78 (2023), 166-177
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Legal regulation of the automation
of judicial enforcement proceedings:
International experience
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4178.11
Nataliia Sergiienko *
Serhii Suslin **
Viktor Makarenko ***
Vira Pyrohovska ****
Maxim Tymoshenko *****
Abstract
The purpose of the article was to oer ways to improve
the legislation regulating the eld of automation of judicial
enforcement proceedings, in order to guarantee the rights of
the executing entities. The research methodology is based on
the application of the following methods of scientic cognition:
analytical, comparative, legal, hermeneutic and synthesis. Gaps
in the legal regulation of automation of court enforcement proceedings in
Ukraine were identied and ways to eliminate them were suggested. The
authors have oered amendments to legislative acts with respect to: granting
the right to the parties to enforcement proceedings to apply through the
enforcement ocer to the State Enterprise “National Information Systems”
to further solve problems of removing obstacles to access to the Automated
System of Court Enforcement Proceedings. It is concluded that, it can be
stated that the automation of court enforcement proceedings is a signicant
achievement of the national system of court enforcement proceedings.
However, in order to improve the legislation on the automation of judicial
enforcement procedures and the practice of its implementation, a set of
institutional reforms must be carried out.
Keywords: judicial enforcement procedure; compulsory enforcement
of judgments; automated system of judicial enforcement
procedure; private executor; information.
* PhD in Law, Professor at the Department of General Legal Disciplines National Academy of the Security
Service of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6681-5961
** PhD in Law, Professor at the Department of General Legal Disciplines National Academy of the
Security Service of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3155-958X
*** PhD in Law, Professor at the Department of General Legal Disciplines, National Academy of the
Security Service of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6753-2212
**** PhD in Law, Assistant at the Department of Philosophy and International communication National
University of Biotechnology and Nature Management, Kyiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0003-3339-8417
***** Doctor of Law, Professor of the Department of Law Faculty of Law European University, Kyiv,
Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2584-5731
167
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 78 (2023): 166-177
Regulación legal de la automatización de los
procedimientos judiciales de ejecución: Experiencia
internacional
Resumen
El objeto del artículo fue ofrecer las vías para mejorar la legislación que
regula el ámbito de la automatización de los procedimientos judiciales de
ejecución, con el n de garantizar los derechos de las entidades ejecutoras.
La metodología de la investigación se basa en la aplicación de los siguientes
métodos de cognición cientíca: analítico, comparativo, jurídico,
hermenéutico y de síntesis. Se identicaron lagunas en la regulación legal
de la automatización de los procedimientos judiciales de ejecución en
Ucrania y se sugirieron formas de eliminarlas. Los autores han ofrecido
enmiendas a los actos legislativos con respecto a: otorgar el derecho a las
partes en los procedimientos de ejecución a solicitar a través del ocial de
ejecución a la Empresa Estatal «Sistemas Nacionales de Información» para
resolver además problemas de eliminación de obstáculos para el acceso al
Sistema Automatizado de Corte Procedimientos de Ejecución. Se concluye
que, cabe armar que la automatización de los procedimientos judiciales de
ejecución es un logro signicativo del sistema nacional de procedimientos
de ejecución judicial. Sin embargo, con el n de mejorar la legislación sobre
la automatización de los procedimientos de ejecución judicial y la práctica
de su aplicación, hay que realizar un conjunto de reformas institucionales.
Palabras clave: procedimiento judicial de ejecución; ejecución forzosa de
resoluciones; sistema automatizado de procedimiento
judicial de ejecución; ejecutor privado; información.
Introduction
Access to reliable and objective information and the existence of
an eective system of protection and counteraction to unauthorized
distribution, use and violation of the integrity of information with limited
access in accordance with the Information Security Strategy are components
of information security of Ukraine (Decree of the President of Ukraine No.
685/2021, 2021). Since, it is information security that is responsible for the
protection of the citizens and state interests in the information sphere from
threats of various nature, both real or virtual threats (Novytskyi, 2022).
Directive of the European Parliament and the Council (EU) 2016/1148
of 6 July 2016 on measures for a high common level of security of network
and information systems on the territory of the Union (Directive (EU)
No. 2016/1148, 2016) plays an important role in the legal regulation of
168
Nataliia Sergiienko, Serhii Suslin, Viktor Makarenko, Vira Pyrohovska y Maxim Tymoshenko
Legal regulation of the automation of judicial enforcement proceedings: International experience
information security sector in the EU. This directive establishes tools for
achieving a high level of security of network and information systems
within the EU.
The Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive, which was
published in July 2016, requires EU Member States to adopt a national
strategy for the security of network and information systems also known
as NCSS (National Cyber Security Strategy), as set out in the Articles
1 and 7 (Sarri et al, 2020). We believe that the specied documents can
be a guideline for the implementation of eective measures in the eld of
ensuring information security in Ukraine.
Compulsory enforcement of court decisions in Ukraine and other agencies
and ocials is carried out within enforcement proceedings. Registration of
enforcement documents, documents of enforcement proceedings, recording
of enforcement actions is carried out in the automated system of court
enforcement proceedings (hereinafter – ASCEP) in accordance with Part
1 of the Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Enforcement Proceedings”
(Law of Ukraine “On Court Enforcement Proceedings”).
L. V. Krupnova notes that the Unied State Register of Court Enforcement
Proceedings no longer exists due to the introduction of the ASCEP in
accordance with the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated from
August 5, 2016 No. 2432/5 (Krupnova, 2018). But we do not agree with this
statement, because in accordance with c. 2 of the Section I of the Regulations
on the Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings approved
by the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on August 5, 2016 No.
2432/5 (hereinafter – the Regulations on the ASCEP), the Unied State
Register of Court Enforcement Proceedings is an archival component of the
Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings and contains data on
enforcement proceedings that were registered before the implementation
of the Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings (Regulations
on the Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings, 2016).
Therefore, the Unied State Register of Court Enforcement Proceedings
exists, but already as a component of the ASCEP.
The functioning of the ASCEP as a single electronic data system on
enforcement proceedings is a signicant achievement of Ukraine in the
eld of digitization of administrative activities. For example, Bulgaria does
not have an automated system for managing enforcement proceedings;
document ow of enforcement proceedings is carried out in paper form.
However, bailis can receive data from electronic registers, use programs
with databases to send electronic documents (Belikova and Popova, 2017).
Similar situation is in Poland: an enforcement ocer has access to state
electronic registers, bank account databases, car owner’s database, social
insurance fund database, provides identication of the debtor’s employer
(as a payer of social contributions) (Plokhuta, 2022).
169
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 78 (2023): 166-177
The Money Restrictions Information System (PLAIS) functions in
Lithuania, which sends the enforcement ocer’s decision to seize the
debtor’s funds to all banks and nancial institutions in the country. The
system debits funds in the required amount and transfers them to the
enforcement ocer taking into account sequence and proportionality
(Avtorgov, 2021). The use of such a system is a signicant achievement of
Lithuania in automating compulsory enforcement of decisions. However,
the Money Restrictions Information System (PLAIS) performs dierent
functions than the ASCEP. Besides, the Lithuanian system of automating
all enforcement proceedings does not contain monetary restrictions.
Analysis of the Regulations on the ASCEP allows us to generalize that
it contains a large amount of information with limited access. Therefore,
the issues of legal provision for entering data into the ASCEP, access to
them, and their security are urgent. Therefore, the authors of this article
oer own vision of the ways to improve the legislation regulating the eld
of automation of enforcement proceedings in order to ensure the rights of
enforcement proceedings entities.
1. Methodology of the study
The methodological basis of this scientic article is based on the use
of various methods of scientic cognition. Due to the application of the
analytical method of scientic cognition, the problem of the divergence
of the content of law norms regarding the entry of data into the ASCEP
during the registration of an enforcement document in the ASCEP and the
actions of an enforcement ocer in case if an enforcement document does
not contain all the details provided by law – on the one hand, and judicial
practice regarding interpretation and application of such legal norms – on
the other hand.
The comparative and legal method of scientic cognition made it
possible to compare the norms of Ukrainian legislation and the norms of
the legislation of certain foreign countries in the eld of automation of court
enforcement proceedings. The generalization that the use of ASCEP is a
signicant achievement of the domestic system of compulsory enforcement
of decisions has been given on the basis of the application of this method.
The hermeneutic method of scientic cognition was used to establish
the content of law norms regulating the eld of automation of court
executive proceedings in Ukraine, namely: entering data into the ASCEP
and accessing them, the security of data contained in the ASCEP, as well
as current judicial practice on the issues highlighted in this research
study. The synthesis method made it possible to generalize considerations
regarding the issues of the topic of the scientic article and to develop
170
Nataliia Sergiienko, Serhii Suslin, Viktor Makarenko, Vira Pyrohovska y Maxim Tymoshenko
Legal regulation of the automation of judicial enforcement proceedings: International experience
specic suggestions for improving the legislation regulating the eld of
automation of court executive proceedings in order to ensure the rights of
court enforcement proceedings entities.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Entering data into the Automated System of Court
Enforcement Proceedings and access to them
The Sections II and IV of the Regulations on the Automated System of
Court Enforcement Proceedings dene the data that must be entered into
the Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings when registering
an enforcement document and when conducting enforcement proceedings
(Regulations on the Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings,
2016). Certain problems occur, if an enforcement document needs to be
registered in the ASCEP and it does not contain all the data that must be
entered in the ASCEP when registering such an enforcement document.
Thus, in addition to other data, the date, month, year of birth, registration
number of a taxpayer’s registration card or series and passport number
of the debtor-individual are entered into the ASCEP when registering an
enforcement document, in accordance with c. 2 of the Section II of the
Regulations on the ASCEP (Regulations on the Automated System of Court
Enforcement Proceedings, 2016). In accordance with paragraphs 3, 4, Part
1 of the Art. 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, this
personal data of the debtor-individual must be contained in the enforcement
document.
In accordance with paragraph 6, Part 4 of the Art. 4 of the Law of
Ukraine “On Court Enforcement Proceedings”, if an enforcement document
does not meet the requirements stipulated in this Article, it is returned
to the execution creditor by the state executive service agency, a private
enforcement ocer without acceptance for execution (Law of Ukraine “On
Court Enforcement Proceedings”).
Therefore, if an enforcement document is presented for compulsory
enforcement and does not contain the date of birth of the debtor-individual,
his registration number of the taxpayer’s registration card or series and
passport number, then such an enforcement document must be returned to
the execution creditor without acceptance for execution.
However, the Decision of the Supreme Court dated from August 22,
2018 in case No. 471/283/17ts states that the absence of information on
the date of birth of the debtor, the registration number of the taxpayer’s
registration card and his passport data in an enforcement letter is not a
171
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 78 (2023): 166-177
reason for returning enforcement documents by the state enforcement
ocer without acceptance to be done.
To substantiate the above, the Supreme Court referred to paragraph 3,
Part 3 of the Art. 18 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”,
which provides the right of an enforcement ocer during the implementation
of enforcement proceedings to receive explanations necessary for carrying
out enforcement actions, certicates and other information, including
condential information, free of charge, from state authorities, enterprises,
institutions, organizations regardless of the form of ownership, ocials,
parties and other participants in enforcement proceedings (The Decision
of The Supreme Court at case No. 471/283/17ts, 2018). Similar conclusion
is given in the Decision of the Supreme Court of 14 December 2022 in
case No. 504/3238/16-ts (The Decision of the Supreme Court in case No.
504/3238/16-ts, 2022).
The authors of this study disagree with the above on the basis on the
following. The interpretation of paragraph 3, Part 3 of the Art. 18 of the Law
of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” indicates that an enforcement
ocer has the right to receive the information he needs to carry out
enforcement actions, precisely during the implementation of enforcement
proceedings. In order to carry out enforcement proceedings, it should
be rst initiated, and before that – one should register the enforcement
document in the ASCEP.
That is, before initiating enforcement proceedings an enforcement ocer
cannot exercise the right to receive data in accordance with Part 3 of the
Art. 18 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. Therefore, in
order to register enforcement proceedings and the initiation, it is necessary
to ll out the form of the enforcement document in the “Parties” tab of
the ASCEP, specifying the date of birth of the debtor, if the subtype of the
debtor is an individual or an individual-entrepreneur (Dragan, 2017).
Therefore, all the data required by law to be entered in the ASCEP while
presenting an enforcement document for compulsory enforcement must
be entered when registering an enforcement document in the ASCEP. The
agency or ocial who issued the enforcement document is responsible for
the accuracy and completeness of the data contained there.
When receiving an enforcement document that does not meet the
requirements of the law (for example, it does not contain data on the date
of birth of the debtor-individual, the registration number of the taxpayer’s
registration card or passport data), an enforcement ocer must act in
accordance with the requirements of the law – to return such an enforcement
document to the execution creditor without acceptance for execution.
The access of the parties to the ASCEP information is ensured by using
the identier for accessing information about the enforcement proceedings
172
Nataliia Sergiienko, Serhii Suslin, Viktor Makarenko, Vira Pyrohovska y Maxim Tymoshenko
Legal regulation of the automation of judicial enforcement proceedings: International experience
in accordance with paragraph 2, c. 2 of the Section VII of the Provisions on
the ASCEP. Such an access identier is indicated in the report on registration
of the enforcement document and the resolution on initiating enforcement
proceedings. In accordance with c. 3 of the Section I of the Regulations on
the ASCEP, the registrars of the ASCEP are responsible persons of the state
executive service agency, state enforcement ocers of the state executive
service agencies, private enforcement ocers, assistants of private
enforcement ocers, responsible persons of private enforcement ocers,
heads of state executive service agencies and their deputies (Regulations on
the Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings, 2016).
However, the identier of the access to information about enforcement
proceedings is formed by other persons. Thus, the court in case No. 2-620/10,
which was reviewed by the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal, concluded in
its decision dated from February 7, 2019 that the state enforcement ocer
does not have the legal grounds and technical ability to produce additional
identiers for the access to information about enforcement proceedings,
since this identier is provided to the ASCEP automatically upon initiating
enforcement proceedings and according to the Regulations on the ASCEP,
the state enforcement ocer does not have access to its formation (The
Ruling of Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal in case No. 2-620/10, 2019).
In accordance with clauses 1, 3 of the Section XIV of the Regulations on
the ASCEP, the Administrator of the ASCEP is responsible for the quality of
providing services for technical and technological support of the ASCEP. And
in accordance with c. 2 of the Section I of the Regulations on the ASCEP, the
Administrator of the ASCEP is the state enterprise “National Information
Systems” (hereinafter – the State Enterprise “NAIS”) (Regulations on the
Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings, 2016).
But the legislation does not provide legal regulation of procedural
interaction within the framework of enforcement proceedings between its
parties and the Administrator of the ASCEP. The possibility of the parties to
enforcement proceedings to have access to the ASCEP corresponds to their
right to be informed about the progress of the enforcement proceedings,
the procedural documents issued in it.
Therefore, we consider it expedient to supplement the Section VII of the
Regulations on the ASCEP with the clause four of the following content:
“In case if the parties to the enforcement proceedings do not have access to
the System for reasons beyond their control, but which can be eliminated
by the Administrator of the System within his competence, the parties
have the right to apply to the enforcement ocer with a request to remove
obstacles to access to the System, which the enforcement ocer forwards
to the Administrator of the System within two days and informs the person
who submitted such a request about the results of the consideration of the
request”.
173
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 78 (2023): 166-177
2.2 Security of data contained in the Automated System of Court
Enforcement Proceedings
The State Enterprise “NAIS” as the Administrator of the ASCEP is
entrusted with the function of taking a set of programmatic, technological
and organizational measures to protect the information contained in the
ASCEP from unauthorized access and the responsibility for preserving
information contained in the Automated System of Court Enforcement
Proceedings in accordance with clauses 1 and 2 of the Section XIV of the
Regulations on the ASCEP (Regulations on the Automated System of Court
Enforcement Proceedings, 2016).
In order to ensure the integrity of information and to prevent unauthorized
access to information contained in state information resources, users access
to all systems and registers (including the ASCEP) has been blocked since
the declaration of the martial law on the territory of Ukraine on February
24, 2022. It was carried out by the State Enterprise “NAIS” within the
framework of its legally dened duties as the Administrator of the ASCEP
(The answer of the State Enterprise “National Information Systems”, 2022).
Registrars of the ASCEP (including state and private enforcement
ocers) were temporarily terminated access to the ASCEP in accordance
with c. 1 of the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated from April
4, 2022 No. 1310/5 “Some issues of access to the automated system of court
enforcement proceedings and the Unied Register of private enforcement
ocers of Ukraine during the period of the martial law” (Order of the
Ministry of Justice of Ukraine No. 1310/5, 2022).
Gradually, such access to the ASCEP is being restored. In order to
restore access to the ASCEP, the State Enterprise “NAIS” must receive a
written notication from the Department of the State Executive Service of
the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine about restoring the access of a specic
enforcement ocer (specic enforcement ocers) to the ASCEP. Only after
that notication the State Enterprise “NAIS” will restore such an access. By
the end of 2022, 253 private enforcement ocers have access to the ASCEP,
or it is 89% of the total number of those operating in Ukraine (Chepurnyi,
2023).
However, at the same time, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine does not
keep track of the correspondence in terms of the number of requests from
private enforcement ocers regarding the restoration of their access to the
ASCEP, which have been received by the Ministry since February 24, 2022
(The answer of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, 2023).
The order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated from April 4, 2022
No. 1310/5 “Some issues of access to the automated system of enforcement
proceedings and the Unied Register of private enforcement ocers of
174
Nataliia Sergiienko, Serhii Suslin, Viktor Makarenko, Vira Pyrohovska y Maxim Tymoshenko
Legal regulation of the automation of judicial enforcement proceedings: International experience
Ukraine during the period of the martial law” does not contain deadlines
for the preparation of written notices on the restoration of access to specic
private enforcement ocers to the ASCEP by the Department of the State
Executive Service of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and addressing such
notices to the State Enterprise “NAIS”.
There are already court cases based on claims of private enforcement
ocers to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine regarding the recognition of
illegal omission of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which consists in not
restoring access to the ASCEP of private enforcement ocers. The courts
have already made a decision in some cases, some are still being considered
in courts. As an example, we can cite the Decision of Kharkiv District
Administrative Court of 13 December 2022 in case No. 520/5223/22 (the
case at the stage of appellate review) (The Decision of Kharkiv District
Administrative Court in case No. 520/5223/22, 2022).
According to the authors of this study, the termination of access to the
ASCEP due to the declaration of the martial law in Ukraine on February 24,
2022 is a justied measure aimed at securing the data of the ASCEP from
possible illegal actions. But the restoration of access of private enforcement
ocers to the ASCEP should take place in accordance with the legislation as
soon as possible, so that they can continue to perform their functions – full,
impartial and timely enforcement of decisions.
Therefore, we consider it appropriate to supplement c. 2 of the Order of
the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine No. 1310/5 dated from April 4, 2022 with
the c. 15 of the following content (after the words “... is not under temporary
occupation as a result of the military aggression of the Russian Federation”):
“Notice on restoration of access of a private enforcement ocer to the
automated system of court enforcement proceedings is prepared by the
Department of the State Executive Service of the Ministry of Justice of
Ukraine no later than three days after conrming the conditions, the
fulllment of which is mandatory for the restoration of such an access, and
within three days is transferred by the Department of the State Executive
Service of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to the Administrator of the
automated system of court enforcement proceedings”.
Conclusion
Having analyzed the state of legal regulation of the automation of
compulsory enforcement of court decisions, other agencies and ocials,
it is worth stating that the use of the ACCEP is a signicant achievement
of the domestic system of court enforcement proceedings. However, in
order to improve the legislation on the automation of court enforcement
proceedings and the practice of its application, the following is expedient.
175
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 78 (2023): 166-177
1. When registering an enforcement document in the ASCEP, all
data required by law to be entered in the ASCEP when presenting
an enforcement document for compulsory enforcement must be
entered. The agency / ocial who issued it is responsible for the
accuracy and completeness of the data contained in an enforcement
document. When receiving an enforcement document that does
not meet the requirements of the law (in particular, it does not
contain data on the date of birth of the debtor-individual, his
registration number of the taxpayer’s registration card or passport
data), an enforcement ocer must act in strict accordance with the
requirements of the law – return such an enforcement document to
an execution creditor without acceptance for execution.
2. We oer to supplement Section VII of the Regulations on the ASCEP
with the fourth paragraph of the following content: “If the parties
to court enforcement proceedings do not have access to the System
for reasons beyond their control, but which can be eliminated by
the System Administrator within the scope of his competence,
the parties have the right to apply to an enforcement ocer with
a request to remove obstacles to access to the System, which the
enforcement ocer forwards to the System Administrator within
two days and informs the person who submitted such a request
about the results of the consideration of the request”.
3. Clause 2 of the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated
from April 4, 2022 No. 1310/5 should be supplemented with
paragraph 15 of the following content (after the words “...is not under
temporary occupation due to the military aggression of the Russian
Federation”): “Notice on restoring access of a private enforcement
ocer to the automated system of court enforcement proceedings
is being prepared by the Department of the State Executive Service
of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine no later than three days after
conrming the conditions, the fulllment of which is mandatory for
the restoration of such access, and within three days is transferred
by the Department of the State Executive Service of the Ministry of
Justice of Ukraine to the Administrator of the automated system of
court enforcement proceedings”.
Bibliographic References
AVTORGOV, Andriy. 2021. About the automated arrest of funds, part 2: the
note of private executor. Available online. In: https://uba.ua/ukr/
news/8424/. Consultation date: 11/02/2023.
176
Nataliia Sergiienko, Serhii Suslin, Viktor Makarenko, Vira Pyrohovska y Maxim Tymoshenko
Legal regulation of the automation of judicial enforcement proceedings: International experience
BELIKOVA, Svitlana; POPOVA, Valentyna. 2017. “Executive proceedings:
comparative and legal analysis of the legislation of Ukraine and Bulgaria”
In: Bulletin of the National Academy of Public Prosecutor’s Oce of
Ukraine. Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 104-110.
CHEPURNYI, Vitaliy. 2023. “Enforcement in the conditions of war: new
challenges and long-standing problems”. Available online. In: https://
pravo.ua/vykonavche-provadzhennia-v-umovakh-viiny-novi-vyklyky-i-
davni-problemy/. Consultation date: 10/02/2023.
DRAGAN, Olena. 2017. “Topical issues of representation of the state interests by
the prosecutor’s oces in the execution of court cases, where debtors are
the subjects of entrepreneurship” In: Bulletin of the National Academy of
Public Prosecutor’s Oce of Ukraine. Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 10-15.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL: Directive (EU). 2016.
No. 2016/1148 of concerning measures for a high common level of
security of network and information systems across the Union. Available
online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/984_013-16#Text.
Consultation date: 04/02/2023.
KHARKIV DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. 2022. Case
No. 520/5223/22. Available online. In: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/
Review/107870891. Consultation date: 02/02/2023.
KROPYVNYTSKYI COURT OF APPEAL. 2019. Case No. 2-620/10. Ruling
dated from February 07. Available online. In: https://reyestr.court.gov.
ua/Review/79952253. Consultation date: 10/02/2023.
KRUPNOVA, Liubov. 2018. System of executive proceedings in Ukraine:
theoretical, legal and praxeological aspects. Thesis for obtaining the
scientic degree of Doctor of Law (doctor of science). Kyiv, Ukraine.
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF UKRAINE. 2016. Order No. 2432/5. “Regulations
on the Automated System of Court Enforcement Proceedings”. Available
online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1126-16#Text.
Consultation date: 16/02/2023.
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF UKRAINE. 2022. Order No. 1310/5. “Some issues
of access to the automated enforcement system and the Unied Registry
of private executors of Ukraine in the period of military condition.
Available online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0381-
22#Text. Consultation date: 10/02/2023.
NOVYTSKYI, Vitalii. 2022. “Strategic principles of information security in
modern conditions” In: Information and Law. Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 111-118.
177
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 41 Nº 78 (2023): 166-177
PLOKHUTA, Ye. 2022. “Foreign experience of administrative and legal
regulation in the eld of enforcement of court decisions and decisions of
other bodies and the possibility of its use in Ukraine” In: Legal Scientic
Electronic Journal. No. 10, pp. 462-466.
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. 2021. Decree No. 685/2021. “On the Decision of
The National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine from October
15, 2021 “On the Strategy of Informational Security”. Available online.
In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/685/2021#n5. Consultation
date: 10/02/2023.
SARRI, Anna; KYRANOUDI, Pinelopi – European Union Agency for
Cybersecurity (ENISA); THIRRIOT, Aude; CHARELLI, Federico;
DOMINIQUE, Yang – Wavestone. 2020. National capabilities
assessment framework. Available online. In: https://www.cip.gov.ua/
ua/news/rekomendaciyi-enisa-kerivnictvo-z-ocinki-nacionalnikh-
spromozhnostei. Consultation date: 11/02/2023.
SUPREME COURT. 2018. Case No. 471/283/17ц. Available online. In:
https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76103235?fbclid=IwAR1eGb74Z
nb3mmpVG_paLfFbicDrsAI_ymsAPwnlMWbsr958HQrphdZBo8w.
Consultation date: 10/02/2023.
SUPREME COURT. 2022. Case No. 504/3238/16-ц. Available online. In:
https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/108025987. Consultation date:
08/02/2023.
THE ANSWER OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF UKRAINE. 2023. To
the request from Nataliia Sergiienko. Available online. In: https://
dostup.pravda.com.ua/request/108482/response/370546/attach/1/...
pdf?cookie_passthrough=1. Consultation date: 16/02/2023.
THE ANSWER OF THE STATE ENTERPRISE «NATIONAL INFORMATION
SYSTEMS». 2022. To the request from Nataliia Sergiienko. Available
online. In: https://dostup.pravda.com.ua/request/102960/response/
361907/attach/3/2298.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1. Consultation date:
07/02/2023.
VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE. 2016. Law of Ukraine No. 1404-VIII “On
Enforcement Proceedings”. Available online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.
ua/laws/show/1404-19. Consultation date: 09/02/2023.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en julio de 2023, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.41 Nº 78
