The norms of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” do not stipulate the obligation of the state executor to notify the debtor about the implementation of enforcement actions to describe and seize the property (funds) of the debtor in accordance with the executive document (court order).
The relevant provision is contained in the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of August 17, 2020 in case спра 910/11364/17.
Circumstances of the case
In substantiating the statement, the Defendant referred to the violation by the Internal Affairs Department of Articles 22, 53, paragraph 1 of Part 5 of Article 56, Article 58 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The defendant noted that the state executor issued a decision on the description and seizure of property (funds) of the debtor, drew up a deed of seizure of property, without access to the premises. At the same time, the executor did not inform the debtor about the implementation of these enforcement actions, and therefore the state executor improperly performed enforcement actions to issue a decision on the description and seizure of the debtor's property and the act of property description.
Sun position
Part 1 of Article 19 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” provides for the right of the parties to enforcement proceedings to participate in the commission of enforcement actions. However, there are no grounds to believe that the state executor deprived the Defendant of the right to participate in enforcement actions on the grounds that he was not notified of such actions within the enforcement proceedings.
It should be noted that the provisions of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings" do not provide for the obligation of the state executor to notify the debtor of enforcement actions to describe and seize the property (funds) of the debtor in accordance with the executive document (court order). The parties to the enforcement proceedings have the right to review the materials of the enforcement proceedings and the Defendant was aware of the opening of enforcement proceedings, as established by the courts of previous instances and is not disputed in the cassation appeal, and therefore the Defendant was not deprived of participation
Also, the complainant's reference in paragraph 13 of the resolution is erroneous, as the documents confirming the direction of the debtor's disputed resolution and the act of description of the debtor's property are not those documents which, in the complainant's opinion, confirm the illegality of the ICE description and seizure of the debtor's property and the act of description of property dated 17.10.2019 issued within the enforcement proceedings opened on the basis of a court order of the Commercial Court of Kyiv. In addition, the circumstances regarding the evidence of sending to the debtor the decision on the description and seizure of the debtor's property and the act of description of the property were not the basis of the Defendant's complaint against the actions of the internal affairs body.
Source:borgexpert.com