DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.142.141440

Execution of court decisions in Ukraine: reforming the system in terms of the right to a fair trial

Татьяна Андреевна Цувина

Abstract


The article addresses the Ukrainian model of executive proceedings (which was recently updated as a result of constitutional reform in the justice sector) through the prism of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Art. 6 ECHR. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the pilot judgement of ECtHR  «Yuriy Nikolaevich Ivanov v. Ukraine» and the judgement «Burmych v. Ukraine», in which the ECtHR diagnosed a systemic problem of non-enforcement of court decisions where the debtor is the State or state-owned enterprises. The article critically assesses the main consequences of reforming the system and procedures of enforcement of court decisions, in particular: establishing the profession of  private bailiffs and transforming the public model of enforcement proceedings into the mixed one, its further decentralization; digitalization of enforcement proceedings by setting up an automated electronic system of executive proceedings, a unified register of debtors and electronic auction systems; introduction of obligatory prepayment of bailiff’s fees by creditor, etc. The article advocates a position according to which the national legislation of Ukraine needs further changes to ensure fulfillment of its international obligations. In particular, it is necessary to provide at national level an effective remedy of the right to a fair trial and execution of court decisions within a reasonable time in accordance with the requirements of Art. 13 ECHR, which should combine preventive and compensatory elements.


Keywords


right to a fair trial, execution of court decisions, enforcement proceedings, model of enforcement proceedings, bailiffs, private bailiffs, reasonable time of a trial, effective remedies

Full Text:

PDF

References


«Akashev v. Russia», no. 30616/05, 12 June 2008, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-86953.

«Anghel v. Italy», no. 5968/09, 25 June 2013, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-121774.

«Apostol v. Georgia», no. 40765/02, 28 November 2006, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-78157.

«Boucke v. Montenegro», no. 26945/06, 21 February 2012, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-109142.

«Burdov v. Russia» (no. 2), no. 33509/04, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-90671.

«Burdov v. Russia», no. 59498/00, 7 May 2002, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60449.

«Burmych v. Ukraine» [GC], no., 46852/13 and others, 12 October 2017, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-178082.

«Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal» [GC], no. 35382/97, 6 July 2000, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58562.

«Estima Jorge v. Portugal», no. 24550/94, 21 April 1998, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58155.

«Fuklev v. Ukraine», no. 71186/01, 7 June 2005, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69261.

«Garcia Mateos v. Spain», no. 38285/09, 19 February 2013. HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-116985.

Good practice Guide on Enforcement of Judicial Decisions, CEPEJ(2015)10, Cite of CEPEJ. URL: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&Ref=CEPEJ(2015)10&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864&direct=true.

«Hornsby v. Greece», no. 18357/91, 25 February 1997, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57988.

«Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy», no. 22774/93, 28 July 1999, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58292.

«Jasiuniene v. Lithuania», no. 41510/98, 06 March 2003, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-

«Kudla v. Poland», no. 30210/96, 26 October 2000, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58920

«Kutzner v. Germany», no. 46544/99, 26 February 2002, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60163.

«Marinković v. Serbia», no. 5353/11, 22 October 2013, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-127124

«Mitovi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia», no. 53565/13, 16 April 2015, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-153812

«Nuutinen v. Finland», no. 32842/96, 27 June 2000, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58736

Overview 1959-2016 ECHR (Council of Europe, 2017), Cite of European Court of Human Rights. URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592016_ENG.pdf

Pending applications allocated to a judicial formation, 30 November 2017, Cite of European Court of Human Rights. URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2017_BIL.pdf

«Santos Nunes v. Portugal», no. 61173/08, 22 May 2012, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-110982 (дата звернення: 10.08.2018).

«Stadnyuk v. Ukraine», no. 30922/05, 12 November 2008, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-89881.

«Sylvester v. Austria», no. 36812/97, 40104/98, 24 April 2003, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61054 .

The ECHR in Facts and Figures 2016 (Council of Europe, 2017), Cite of European Court of Human Rights. URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Facts_Figures_2016_ENG.pdf

Uzelac, A. The Role Played by Bailiffs in the Proper and Efficient Functioning of the Judicial System – an Overview with Special Consideration of the Issues Faced with Countries in Transition”. The Role, Organization, Status and Training of Bailiffs. Varna, 2002. P. 1-14.

«Yuriy Nikolaevich Ivanov v. Ukraine», no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009, HUDOC. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-95032 .

Tsuvina, T. (2015). Pravo na sud u tsyvil'nomu sudochynstvi. Kharkiv: Slovo [in Ukrainian].


GOST Style Citations




Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM




Copyright (c) 2018 Татьяна Андреевна Цувина

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2224-9281