On May 21, 2026, a draft law “On Amending Paragraph 10-2 of Section XIII ‘Final and Transitional Provisions’ of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Enforcement Proceedings’” was submitted to the legislature for consideration.
This legislative initiative (Draft No. 15264) aims to resolve the existing legal uncertainty regarding the enforcement of non-property-related court decisions, where the debtors are military command authorities and other entities exercising governmental powers in the defense sector. The bill aims to balance the interests of the state under martial law with citizens’ constitutional right to judicial protection and the actual enforcement of court decisions.
In accordance with the current version of paragraph 22 of section 102 of Chapter XIII of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings,” during the period of martial law in Ukraine, enforcement actions in enforcement proceedings to enforce decisions where the debtors are enterprises of the defense-industrial complex, military command bodies, formations, military units, higher military educational institutions, and agencies that are part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Currently, the law provides an exhaustive list of exceptions to this rule, which includes judgments on claims by individuals for the recovery of wages, monetary allowances for military personnel, their recalculation, and the provision of housing for military personnel, as well as decisions in which the state, the Pension Fund of Ukraine, or other state special-purpose funds are the claimants, and decisions regarding compensation for harm caused by injury, other damage to health, or death.
This regulatory framework has effectively halted the enforcement of a wide range of non-property-related court decisions. In particular, this concerns decisions in which courts order a public authority to take certain actions or to refrain from taking them.
In practice, this has made it impossible to enforce decisions requiring territorial recruitment and social support centers to make the changes mandated by law to the registries of persons subject to military service or to remove an individual from military registration. A similar problem has arisen with the enforcement of decisions requiring military units to review reports submitted by service members, including those regarding discharge from military service where there are lawful grounds.
The draft law proposes to expand the existing list of exceptions to the general rule on the suspension of enforcement actions. It is proposed to amend paragraph 22 of section 102 of Chapter XIII of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” with a provision under which the suspension would not apply to enforcement actions based on non-property-related decisions—court rulings on claims filed by individuals, under which the debtor is required to perform certain actions or refrain from performing them. This means that state enforcement officers will have legal grounds to enforce decisions of an obligatory nature against military command bodies and military units.
The proposed amendments are necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional principle of the binding nature of court decisions. Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 1291 of the Constitution, a court renders a decision in the name of Ukraine, and such a decision is binding. The right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, becomes ineffective if the national legal system permits prolonged and unjustified non-enforcement of a final court decision by a public authority. The enforcement of a court decision is an integral part of everyone’s right to judicial protection. Ensuring the enforcement of a court decision is a direct positive obligation of the state, and the inability to enforce it due to shortcomings in legislative regulation or the absence of enforcement mechanisms constitutes a violation of the very essence of the right to judicial protection.
The suspension of the enforcement of court decisions against state bodies should not be absolute or indefinite, as this disrupts the fair balance between public and private interests.
A practical consequence of adopting the proposed amendments will be the restoration of the effectiveness of justice in administrative cases involving military personnel and those subject to military service. Individuals who have obtained favorable court rulings recognizing the inaction of military command or registration authorities as unlawful will be able to utilize the mechanism of state enforcement to effectively restore their violated rights. This is because, at present, such decisions are enforced voluntarily or not at all, which undoubtedly violates the rights of the individuals in whose favor they were issued.
At the same time, the proposed provision is carefully worded, as it applies exclusively to non-property-related rulings. This eliminates the risk of unimpeded collection of budgetary funds or the seizure of military units’ property, which could negatively impact the state’s defense capability under martial law.
Thus, removing the legislative barrier to enforcement actions based on non-property (obligatory) decisions will contribute to upholding the principle of the rule of law and ensure an appropriate level of legal certainty in relations between the state and its citizens.
Author: Olga Tarasenko, Barrister
Source: https://zib.com.ua/ua/172760-vidnovlennya_dievosti_adminsudochinstva_zminami_do_zakonu_pr.html