The enforcement of court decisions in Ukraine is all too often associated with coercion, the freezing of bank accounts, and enforcement fees. Current legislation effectively leaves a bona fide debtor who wishes to pay the debt with no convenient way to do so until the “machinery” of enforcement proceedings has already been set in motion.

The draft law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Voluntary Enforcement of Judgments for the Collection of Monetary Funds” (No. 14108-1 dated October 15, 2025) (hereinafter—the Draft Law) is an attempt to fill this legal gap. Its goal is to create practical mechanisms for debtors to comply with court decisions without the use of coercive measures, which, in theory, benefits both parties.

Let’s examine the key provisions of the Bill, their strengths, and potential risks.

Recall the news: This has happened before... The Verkhovna Rada proposes giving debtors 7 days to voluntarily comply with a court decision

The bill proposes a number of logical and long-awaited changes.

1. “Preemptive” Enforcement (New Article 71 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”)

This is the key and most positive provision. It establishes a mechanism for voluntary compliance prior to the initiation of enforcement proceedings.

How it will work: If the claimant (for example, an individual) did not specify their account number in the complaint, the debtor has the right to transfer funds to the escrow account of the State Enforcement Service or a private enforcement agent at their place of residence.

Benefits:

• For the debtor: The debtor is the primary beneficiary. By making a payment to the escrow account, the debtor:

• Avoids paying the 10% enforcement fee.
• Prevents the initiation of enforcement proceedings (the enforcement officer will return the document to the creditor pursuant to paragraph 13 of Part 4 of Article 4).
• Avoids the automatic seizure of accounts and being listed in the Unified Register of Debtors (URD) as an active debtor.

2. Transparency of Information (Amendments to the Commercial Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure Code)

The bill requires plaintiffs (creditors) to include their bank account details in claims for the recovery of funds.

Benefits:

• Removal of obstacles: The debtor will no longer be able to claim that “they would have been happy to pay, but didn’t know where to send the payment.” Upon receiving a court decision, they will have all the necessary details for immediate enforcement.
• Encouraging direct payments: This makes the mechanism described in paragraph 1 (payment into escrow) the exception rather than the rule, since in most cases the account details will be known.

3. Improving “Settlement with Property” (New Article 72 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”)

The draft law proposes a viable alternative to the ineffective provision (Part 8 of Article 26), which is proposed to be repealed. It establishes a clear procedure for voluntary enforcement after the initiation of proceedings through the transfer of property or its independent sale.

Advantages:

• Flexibility for the parties: The debtor and the creditor may agree to settle the debt with property, which is often faster and more cost-effective than forced sale through SETAM.
• Protection for the creditor: A key safeguard is the requirement for the creditor’s written, notarized consent. This prevents abuse by the debtor, who might otherwise attempt to “settle” the debt with worthless or illiquid property.
• Lifting of Restrictions: Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Road Traffic” and to Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” allow for the lifting of seizure and the re-registration of property (e.g., a car) for such a transfer, making the mechanism operational.

Risks and “Weaknesses” of the Bill

Despite the positive intent, the devil is in the details. The implementation of certain provisions creates new problems, primarily for the creditor.

1. Bureaucratic Burden on the Creditor (Risk under Article 71)

The debtor has fulfilled their obligation—they’ve paid the money into the State Enforcement Service’s deposit account. It would seem that everyone should be satisfied. But for the creditor, the ordeal is just beginning.

• New Application: To receive their money, the creditor is required to file a separate application with the enforcement officer.
• Original document: The original enforcement order must be attached to the application.
• Risk of losing funds: If the creditor does not claim the money within three years, it is transferred to the State Budget.

Legal risk: A claimant who has already won the case is forced to go through a new bureaucratic procedure. If they were unaware of this payment (see the next risk) or are abroad, they risk not receiving the funds at all. The transfer of funds to the budget after three years appears to be an unfair punishment of the claimant for inaction, even though the state, represented by the State Enforcement Service, merely acted as a “transit” account.

2. Communication Risks (Risk under Article 71)

The debtor is required to notify the creditor of voluntary compliance (via the “Electronic Court” system or by certified mail).

Legal risk: What if the debtor failed to do so or did so improperly? The creditor, unaware of the payment into the State Enforcement Service’s deposit account, files a document for enforcement. The enforcement officer must verify the payment and return the document. But this creates confusion, delays, and potential disputes. It is unclear how quickly the enforcement officer will see this transaction in their deposit account, which is not designed to automatically identify such payments.

3. “Voluntary” Sale of Property (Risk under Art. 72)

Although the mechanism for transferring property (Article 72) is secured by a notarized agreement, it has loopholes.

• Pricing: The bill does not regulate the issue of the value at which the property is sold by the debtor or transferred to the creditor. Unlike SETAM, which involves a market appraisal and an auction, here the parties are free to set the price.
• Risk to Other Creditors: If the debtor owes money to creditors other than this particular creditor, the “voluntary” sale of property at an undervalued price (even with the consent of a single creditor) may violate the rights of other creditors in the order of priority.
• Uncertainty regarding the enforcement fee: Article 72 states that proceedings end after the debt is fully repaid, taking into account the enforcement fee. This means that even if the transfer of property covers the “principal” of the debt, the debtor still owes the 10% fee, and the proceedings will not be terminated. This could come as an unpleasant surprise to the debtor.

4. Status in the Debtors’ Registry (Risk under Article 71)

Upon receiving the funds on deposit (pursuant to Article 71), the enforcement officer still enters the information into the Unified Register of Debtors, but with a note indicating voluntary compliance.

Risk: It is unclear what practical status such a “voluntarily fulfilled” entry will have. Will banks and notaries treat it as a full-fledged entry in the Unified Register of Debtors and still freeze accounts or refuse to execute legal transactions? If so, the debtor’s primary motivation (avoiding negative consequences) is partially negated.

Conclusion

The bill is undoubtedly positive and progressive. It offers a solution to a real problem where a bona fide debtor is forced to bear additional costs (enforcement fees) and face restrictions (account seizures) solely due to the lack of a voluntary payment mechanism.

Its strengths include establishing clear pathways for debt repayment both before the initiation of proceedings and improving the procedure for settling debts with the debtor’s assets.

Weaknesses include primarily procedural risks that shift part of the responsibility and bureaucratic burden onto the creditor (recovering funds from a deposit) and create legal uncertainty (status in the Unified Register of Debtors, asset valuation).

For the successful implementation of this Law, it will be critically important to further develop subordinate legislation that would automate the process of identifying payments in the State Enforcement Service’s deposits to the greatest extent possible and simplify the procedure for the creditor to receive funds.