Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article is devoted to a comparative legal analysis of the provisions of the Laws of Ukraine “On Executive Proceedings”, “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine”, “On Arbitration Courts”, “On International Commercial Arbitration”, the Economic Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine in the context of disclosing the issues of legal categories “order”, “court order”, “interim order”, “executive document” with due regard to the updated provisions of national procedural legislation regarding the requirements for their content, delimitation and peculiarities of enforcement. Executing proceedings are the final stage of court proceedings, so first of all, it is necessary to understand the executive proceedings of those court decisions that are problematic for enforcement due to legal gaps in their definition, interpretation, delineation and enforcement. Executing proceedings, as a set of sequential actions, have their beginning, which is impossible without an executive document. By studying the provisions of the current procedural laws, the authors conclude that “court decisions” and “executive documents” are interrelated but not identical concepts, and therefore, for proper law enforcement, their meaningful load needs to be clarified. The authors identify the gaps in legislation which have negative consequences: the use of different names in procedural codes for an executive document required for the enforcement of the same court judgments depending on the proceedings; the “form” of a court judgment and the “type” of a court judgment have different content and cannot be applied as identical; the list of enforcement documents is contained in different laws, which does not contribute to the unity of law enforcement. Based on a comparative legal analysis of the current procedural laws, the authors propose ways to eliminate legal gaps. Key words: order, court order, interim order, executive document, executive proceedings, procedural law, court decision.
Puzyrnyi et al. (Mon,) studied this question.