“I’m not sure that the content of the state executive service is reasonable,” the expert of the EU project “Law-Justice” emphasized.
With the renewal of the Cabinet of Ministers, reforms in the work of the judiciary will inevitably await the country. In particular, in the field of executive service. The Institute of Private Executors appeared in Ukraine in the summer of 2016, after the adoption of the Law “On Bodies and Persons Enforcing Judicial Decisions and Decisions of Other Bodies” and the new version of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. About what other changes await the profession in the future and what is planned to be undertaken to establish the productive work of private performers, the Judicial-Legal Newspaper talked with the international expert of the EU Law-Justice Project Katilin Popov.
“The aim of the reform of the executive service is the proper execution of court decisions, since Ukraine is currently undergoing changes to the legislation on the enforcement proceedings and the creation of a new profession - a private executor. The main mission of the reform carried out in 2016 was, in fact, improving indicators in the sphere of enforcement of court decisions, ”said Katilin Popov.
- What goals do you set for yourself and the Ukrainian government now? What do you want to achieve by continuing the reform of the executive service, including in the context of private performers?
- Statistics show us that over the three years, improvements have indeed occurred, but, of course, not as expected. There is still a lot of work ahead, but there is already a certain positive signal. So, there is clear evidence that private performers work really better than their public sector counterparts. They are not only more effective, but also better comply with legal requirements.
We are currently working on the formation of a legislative package and we are attracting a large number of partners to work together: the business community, the legal community and many others. As part of the work, we pose ourselves three main questions.
First of all, what? What is our ultimate goal, what we want to achieve by implementing these reforms and introducing changes to the legislation. We want to create conditions in Ukraine for business development and economic growth. This is the main goal, while improving the quality of execution of decisions is only a means to achieve it.
Secondly, who? Who is in the priority of reforms and will lead the whole system forward? We have an answer, and we are sincerely sure that these should be private performers. It is necessary to invest in the profession and support its development in Ukraine. Now Ukrainian society has a unique chance to restart the whole profession from scratch, to make it worthy of trust and become an example of high qualities and competencies.
The third question is definitely how? How exactly private performers will implement their tasks. It is within the framework of this block that we offer certain novelties for improving processes within the framework of the execution of court decisions.
- What exactly are you proposing to change?
- It is about the courts facilitating the execution of decisions, rather than preventing this.
Let's take some real and understandable examples. Now one of the most problematic issues is the possibility of suspension of execution in court. It is necessary to make changes to this system. There is only one solution to this problem - amending the law. If a party appeals to the court to suspend execution, it must provide counter security for the claim. Thus, it is possible to discipline the parties to the judicial process, to exclude the possibility of abuse of the procedural possibility of suspending the execution of court decisions.
- This is if we talk about the courts. What about the other stages of enforcement proceedings?
- Now in general it is very important to get rid of bureaucratic formalities. For example, requirements to carry out executive action in clearly defined terms. Suppose to seize no later than the next business day after the opening of production. We consider this superfluous, especially for private performers. Of course, the Justice Ministry wants to discipline its employees and speed up the implementation of decisions. But then it is worth writing these norms directly in the instructions for state executors. Indeed, for a private performer, the only incentive is the reward that he will receive as a result of work. He will act quickly and efficiently anyway, it is in his interests.
Another important issue is the seizure of bank accounts. We know that there is a desire on the part of the new government to improve these processes, in particular, this is the digitalization of information processes between executors and banks. But we want complete automation, not only in the imposition of arrests, but also in the automatic debit of funds.
At this stage, there are many exceptions and reservations about how much of the funds can still be written off to repay the penalty. And this is an obvious obstacle to the full automation of the process, because it should be logical and simple. We suggest taking the first simple step - to simplify the charge-off algorithm. To do this, we propose to remove a huge amount of “if” from the law and leave only one that applies to all categories of debtors. This will be the inability to collect a fixed amount, as well as write off the remaining funds in favor of the claimant. This fixed amount may be related to the minimum wage and determined by the Cabinet, for example.
- What about the process of admission to the profession? So, the team of President Vladimir Zelensky has already sounded a number of comments on the exams. Are any changes planned in the process of obtaining a private contractor license?
- Yes, a whole range of changes is needed. In particular, it is necessary to remove all administrative barriers in access to the exam, and secondly, to automate absolutely all examinations. Yes, formally they are supposedly automated, but reality tells us the opposite.
So, it is worth mentioning the sequence of steps of the candidate for private performers. Today, the candidate immediately passes the initial training, then an internship, and only then passes the exam. For ourselves, we see this process in the reverse order. First, exams, after preparation, including practical training. This is a very practical example.
- And by the way about automation. What place in the future reform is planned to devote to the digitalization of processes?
- This part of the reform is incredibly important. But electronic document management is not an end in itself, but just a tool for further high-quality work. This, firstly, will provide improved and really convenient access for the parties to the case file. Secondly, this will lead to a reduction in the costs of enforcement proceedings. Without process automation, the cost of execution will always be high. And the costs are covered precisely by the parties to the production, that is, the citizens of Ukraine. We must keep these costs to a minimum.
- And how was the process of reforming and introducing the institution of private performers in Bulgaria (Katilin Popov has been working as a private performer in Bulgaria for 15 years)?
- Reform in Bulgaria was carried out in 2005. And we still have private and public performers. But we, private performers, do not see direct competitors in our public sector colleagues. Although initially we worked in conditions of fierce competition. The peak of the workload was in 2012. This was all a consequence of the 2008 crisis. Since then, we have noticed a gradual decline in the number of cases, as the economy is gradually recovering. We are discussing with colleagues our future, the future of our profession. In today's world, everything goes into electronic format, and we are also trying to occupy our niche.
- Could it happen that after the reforms, private executives simply supersede the civil service as an institution?
- The question of the future of state performers is entirely in the competence of the government of Ukraine. I am sure that the state executive service will exist as long as it is justified. It may be such that they decide to simply abolish GIS in one day, or perhaps it will be a long and complicated process.
What is much more important now for Ukraine is to equalize the mandates of state and private performers. And I’m sure that this should happen right now. All this time we had good performance of private performers. There is no reason to believe that they may not cope in the future.
- And yet, why, having received a court decision, in your opinion, should the recoverer turn to private performers?
- It's simple. First, private performers are motivated. This is a personal financial interest, unlike state ones, which are simply afraid of losing their jobs. Secondly, affordable communication. In the state executive service, it takes place with technical staff, secretaries, who are not always able to fully answer the questions of the parties to the enforcement proceedings.
I personally, I repeat, do not see competitors in government executives. But, as a tax payer, I’m not sure that the state’s maintenance of a service that is not particularly effective is reasonable.
Source: SUD.UA
(translated using google translator)