Private executives can significantly reduce the number of appeals to the ECtHR

The European Court of Human Rights is tired of considering complaints by Ukrainians about non-enforcement of national court decisions. Because all his recommendations for the solution of the problem are simply ignored, and the shaft of complaints is increasing. Ukraine needs to take systematic measures. Lawyers suggested where to start.

Patience broke

Recently, the legal community was shaken by the decision of the Great Chamber of the ECHR in the case of Burmich and others v. Ukraine. They removed them from the register and handed over to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe over 12100 cases of our compatriots who complained about non-enforcement of decisions of national courts.

These are statements made after the issuance of the pilot decision "Yuriy Ivanov v. Ukraine". In this verdict, in 2009, structural problems with the implementation of decisions of national courts were identified, which leads to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In a press release on this subject, the ECtHR noted that at the time of the decision in September 2009, there were 1,400 such cases before the Court. Today, although the 14430 hearings in this group have already ended, there remains 12,143. If they are simply addressed without addressing the root cause of the problem, the number of applicants will only increase. Then, the ECtHR risks becoming a part of the Ukrainian judicial system.

The document states that no benefit or restoration of justice should not be expected from the multiple repetition of court findings in the long list of such cases. It was therefore recognized that it was the Committee of Ministers to determine the way of solving the problem and to identify the necessary general measures for Ukraine.

Governmental formalism

This decision was not prevented by the fact that in Ukraine there is a diverse judicial reform, in particular in the system of implementation of decisions. A new version of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" was adopted on June 1, 2016, No. 1404-VIII, and the Law "On Bodies and Persons Enforcing the Enforcement of Court Decisions and Decisions of Other Bodies" dated June 2, 2016, No. 1403-VIII.

However, only acceptance of acts is not enough. We need a political will to get practical benefits from the norms. Therefore, the Association of Ukrainian Lawyers organized a discussion of the issue.

Interestingly, on the day of the discussion, held its first meeting of the Subcommittee on the implementation of decisions of the ECHR of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy. It was created this summer.

The parliamentary subdivision is dissatisfied with the work of the Government Commissioner for European Affairs. Because they did not receive a clear answer to their appeal regarding the list of general measures implemented by the Government. But it turned out that the final list does not exist. That is, the executive does not understand what it should do and why.

A new profession will help

Lawyers also rightly noticed that in their objections to citizens' applications to the ECtHR, the Government, in particular, refers to the reform of the enforcement proceedings. However, apparently, in practice, it still leaves much to be desired.

Meanwhile, lawyers see in the emergence of a new profession a real opportunity to improve the situation. Y.Khorunzhy suggested, from which you can start. He referred to the statistics of the Ministry of Justice and noted that about 30% of the open today's enforcement proceedings concern the collection of alimony - more than 550 thousand cases. Another 570 thousand - other production, which can also go to private performers, if the number of the latter will be sufficient.

While the representatives of the new profession are only 69. However, according to the lawyer, they have already opened 498 production facilities, of which 76 have been completed. This shows the performance of the work. It would be advisable for the Government or the Ministry of Justice to campaign for the promotion of new services among the population, including among those claiming for social disputes. Because these productions today more than 50%, and private executives could effectively help citizens and unload the state executive service.


Director of the Center for Commercial Law Valentine Danishevskaya proposed to solve the problem with the implementation of decisions on alimony on the example of the Baltic States. There the state assumed the obligation to pay maintenance. And then the performers, and there work only private, charging funds from the debtors in favor of the state. In addition, according to V. Danishevskaya, NGOs and expert institutions have specific work on what steps to take and what measures to take. But officials, while declaring the need for reforms, do not really want to change anything.

In turn, the deputies proposed cooperation, because they can receive information from officials and lobby for the introduction of proposals developed by expert circles.

Ostensibly there are certain tools. However, again, the effectiveness of their use depends on political will. We have to hope that it will now appear. Since the decision in the case of Burmich and others v. Ukraine, as has been said, became "if not red, then a deeply saturated yellow card".

Andriy Stelmashchuk, President of the Ukrainian Bar Association:

Our judicial system has some problems and we are working to solve them. But there are problems with the implementation of decisions. And it is difficult to say which ones are more sharp and what to start with. Of course, it is very important to ensure a fair trial. However, because of non-enforcement of decisions, citizens do not receive protection of rights and interests, in which they turn to the judicial system.

The decision "Burmich and Others v. Ukraine" has become quite resonant. It is discussed in the legal community, in social networks. Therefore, we decided to hold a special discussion to understand, and what actually happened and what this decision means for the Ukrainian society as a whole and for each citizen separately.

Author: Ivan Grigoriev

(translated using google translate)