Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This article is devoted to the general theoretical analysis of the legal nature of such a legal phenomenon as the postponement of execution, modification, or establishment of the method and procedure of executing a decision in civil proceedings, viewed through the lens of proposed doctrinal definitions of this cross-sectoral legal institute. It is determined that in modern civil proceedings, issues of postponement and installment of execution, modification, or establishment of the method and procedure of executing court decisions are among the aspects that determine the effectiveness and fairness of justice. Attention is drawn to the fact that, under certain circumstances, postponement of execution, modification, or establishment of the method and procedure of executing a decision is more justified and rational during the execution of a court decision. It is precisely these measures ‒ postponement, installment of execution, modification, or establishment of the method and procedure of execution ‒ that allow for balancing the interests of all participants in the enforcement proceedings, as well as creating the possibility for the actual execution of the court decision in the future. The article examines scientific positions regarding the legal definition of such concepts as postponement and installment of execution, modification of the method of executing court decisions, and modification of the procedure for their execution. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that postponement, installment of execution, modification, or establishment of the method and procedure of execution are primarily aimed at ensuring the timely, complete, and impartial execution of a decision, and thereby, the actual restoration of violated rights, freedoms, and interests of individuals. Consequently, by their legal nature, these measures are more about balancing the interests of the parties in enforcement proceedings, with the aim of ensuring the full execution of the court decision and achieving the ultimate goal of judicial protection ‒ the restoration of the violated right.
Ulyana Vorobel (Sat,) studied this question.