The article explores the current challenges in the functioning of the system for the compulsory enforcement of court decisions in Ukraine under conditions of legal transformation and martial law. The focus is placed on the comparative analysis of the legal status of state and private enforcement officers, the specifics of their powers, as well as the practical aspects of executing enforcement actions in temporarily occupied territories and areas of active hostilities. The legal nature of enforcement proceedings is revealed as the final stage of the judicial process, which ensures the actual restoration of violated rights and interests of the parties. Special attention is paid to the regulatory framework governing the actions of enforcement officers during martial law. In particular, the article analyzes the legal position of the Supreme Court regarding the application of deadlines for presenting enforcement documents, the suspension of enforcement actions concerning debtors who are military personnel, and the prohibition of enforcing notarial writs on certain categories of contracts. The article also highlights restrictions on initiating enforcement proceedings in territories included in the official list of temporarily occupied areas or those where active hostilities are ongoing. The study examines existing legal conflicts and gaps in enforcement practice, particularly those related to the lack of proper information available to enforcement officers about the debtor’s status or the location of their assets, which may result in violations of the principle of legal certainty. Examples of judicial practice and conclusions are provided that are important for the development of a unified approach in law enforcement practice. All of this ultimately contributes to the implementation of effective enforcement procedures, the improvement of service quality, and the prompt restoration of violated rights. These changes lead to increased legal awareness among citizens and a higher rate of voluntary compliance with court decisions. Based on the analysis conducted, a number of conclusions are drawn. The existence of a mixed model (state and private enforcement officers) has an overall positive impact on the efficiency of the enforcement system. At the same time, the article emphasizes the need to improve coordination between executive bodies, enhance electronic interaction, legally strengthen the mechanisms for protecting the rights of parties to enforcement proceedings under martial law, and increase oversight of the legality of enforcement officers’ actions.
M. V. Dyeyev (Sat,) studied this question.