Reform in the field of executive decisions causes a lot of controversy and myths, despite the successful and effective experience of almost the whole world. The emergence of private performers has generated a lot of fears and stories about the fantastic incomes of representatives of the new profession. What is really happening, why reform should lead, and why so few people want to become private performers, we questioned Ruslan Sidorovich, people's deputy of Ukraine of the 8th convocation, co-author of the laws № 1404-VIII and 1403-19.
Next - direct speech.
In Europe there are only five countries in which only the state executive service operates. In most of them, there is a mixed or private form of execution of court decisions. The introduction of "quasi-outsourcing" in this area provides a bunch of bonuses and benefits. Firstly, there are really interested in the implementation of individual decisions. After all, state executives are not interested at all. Their work more likely looked like an illustration of the phrase "soldier sleeps, the service is coming". Secondly, the corruptness of the profession is significantly reduced. Not all state executives receive their seats honestly and solely for their personal abilities - this problem exists not only in the bodies of internal affairs, but also in other government bodies.
Critics of the reform contended that it is necessary simply to recruit more state executors, if existing fail to cope, to raise their salary. And do not enter the institution of private performers. But in this case, citizens would have to pay for their work. There is no concept of public funds, there are funds from taxpayers. It would be about millions of hryvnia, which would not be paid by participants in proceedings, but people who have no relation to these processes. The third plus is that by introducing the Institute of Private Executors, we unload the budget and give the opportunity to send the money released in the industry that needs more - education, medicine, culture, etc.
Of course, the issue of control here is very important: the state must ensure a guarantee of non-abuse and appropriate punishment. We have envisioned strict control methods in the law, but I can say that at the start of the launch of the Institute of Private Performers, these are the necessary measures. Rigid control and care in this case are justified. Representatives of private performers will eventually themselves worry about the "purity of the profession." This happens in other countries of the post-socialist camp, where such reforms have been carried out many years ago.
We also envisaged a serious insurance coverage for private performers. By the end of 2017, private executives will not be able to engage in enforcement proceedings for more than six million hryvnia. During the first year of its activity, irrespective of the beginning of the year - in the amount of more than twenty millions, subject to the full insurance coverage of the amount. In the second and third year - any amount also under full insurance coverage. Only in the fourth year, the amount of proceedings is not limited and should cover only 10% insurance. Ukrainian reform of executive proceedings is the most conservative and cautious throughout the European continent.
The argument for opponents of reform is one: the judiciary is not reformed and judges can make biased decisions. But this issue is already before the courts, and not to the executive service. Moreover, it is the state executives who have a lot of questions. And we often see in the media how the employees of the state executive service are involved in bribes, as they become participants in raider schemes. In the end, it was the Justice Ministry itself that did not deny such problems and favored reform.
The law restricts executive enforcement, which can "serve" private executives. One of these categories is state-owned enterprises. Interestingly, some of these companies were "offended" by us because of the inability to work with private performers. They also wanted to use the services of motivated private performers. This fact speaks for itself.
I have a question before how the work of private and public executives is evaluated. The payment service must bind to two things. First, to the amount charged. The lower the amount, the higher the percentage, the larger the amount, the percentage should be smaller. The second less important point is that the size of the payment executor should be tied to the amount of work that he performed. In France, performers have a great Talmud - it takes into account all options of performers and thus the amount of rewards is formed.
So, we can say that the system of payment for public and private performers needs to be adjusted. For the payer and the debtor, there should be no difference between public and private performers when it comes to costs.
We thought of the reform so that, in line with the increase in the number of private performers, the number of state-owned enterprises decreased. In the end, they should disappear altogether. Or, perhaps, they will work only in those areas that concern state security and objects of critical infrastructure.
Now we can not say that reform in the field of executive proceedings has taken place. This requires that a sufficient number of private performers appear. Now they are not enough - only sixty. If the number increases at such a slow pace, we will not see changes. And this is a stone in the city of the Ministry of Justice. They made an artificial filter - only one higher education institution can prepare specialists. It is wrong. We have to open the gateway. At the entrance, there should be elementary criteria - education, professionalism. No need to look for additional questions and complicate the process. I know that in the Ministry of Justice there are people who understand the need to remove such a filter, and I believe that we will soon remove it.
In order to implement the reform, around four thousand private executives must work in the country. But to assume that the reform can be made only if judicial decisions are executed. Now this indicator varies within the limits of statistical error - only 2-4% of decisions. Even if it grows to 10-15%, the situation is already changing significantly. In Europe, roughly half of the decisions are made.
The main thing now is to change the attitude of Ukrainians. Make them understand: okay, a judgment will be executed! The guarantee of enforcement is a guarantee of access to justice.
RUSLAN SIDOROVICH
People's Deputy of the VIII convocation, co-author of the laws № 1404-VIII and 1403-19
(translated using google translator)