There is a legal conflict between the enforcement of the decision and the preservation of the seizure of property – opinion

After the decision has been actually enforced (e.g., compensation has been paid), the seizure of property remains in force. This is because courts do not issue separate decisions to lift interim measures. This creates artificial legal uncertainty that restricts property rights.
This was pointed out by Dmytro Buzanov, a member of the human rights Committee of the Ukrainian National Bar Association, during his speech at the VI All-Ukrainian round table «Application of legislation during martial law in Ukraine» held on 30 June.
As an example, he cited a typical case of division of marital property, where the court of first instance granted the application for interim relief and seized the property. After the claim was fully satisfied on appeal and a writ of execution was issued, the plaintiff turned to a private enforcement agent. The debtor, understanding the consequences of the sale of the property, voluntarily paid compensation, and the seizure within the enforcement proceedings was canceled. However, the seizure imposed by the court as a measure to secure the claim remained in force, as a separate court decision was required to lift it.
Neither the court of first instance nor the appellate court took advantage of the opportunity to resolve the issue of lifting the security measures after the decision on the merits was made. As a result, the debtor was forced to separately apply to the court with a corresponding petition. However, despite the five-day period for consideration of such applications, as specified in the Civil Procedure Code, the case was heard for three months, with numerous postponements initiated by the claimant and without reasonable grounds on the part of the court.
In addition, the decision to cancel the interim measures may be appealed. For example, according to the practice of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, this can take up to a year. Thus, even after the decision has been enforced, the debtor cannot use the property for a long time, as it formally remains under arrest. In the speaker's opinion, this violates the balance of interests of the parties and the principles of fair judicial protection.
The speaker also drew attention to the fact that, according to Part 4 of Article 59 of the Law «On Enforcement Proceedings», an arrest imposed as a measure to secure a claim may be lifted by the executor only on the basis of a separate court decision. This means that even if the court decision has been fully enforced, the enforcement officer does not have the authority to lift the seizure imposed by the court order. This creates a conflict, complicates the enforcement of decisions, and violates the rights of a conscientious debtor.
In view of this, D. Buzanov proposed amendments to the CPC and the Law on Enforcement Proceedings:
- automatic termination of measures to secure a claim after full enforcement of a court decision, unless otherwise established by the court (add to part 7 of Article 158 of the CPC);
- establishment of a shortened period for consideration of appeals against rulings on the cancellation of measures to secure a claim — no more than 30 days (amend Article 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure);
- granting enforcement agents the right to lift the seizure in case of documentary confirmation of full enforcement of the decision (add a new paragraph to part 4 of Article 59 of the Law «On Enforcement Proceedings»).
According to the speaker, the implementation of these changes will reduce the period for the release of property from seizure from 6–18 months to 5–10 days, reduce the burden on the judicial system, and eliminate corruption risks associated with deliberate delays in the consideration of cases.
He also emphasized that under martial law, restrictions on property rights even after a decision has been enforced have serious economic consequences. Property that remains under arrest cannot be used for economic activities or household needs. And citizens who have lost part of their income due to the war need their property rights to be restored quickly.
Popular news

Advocacy
Another conflict with the TCC: an advocate's leg was broken and his client jumped out of a window
On June 19, at the premises of the military medical commission, where a bus from the Krasnograd Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support delivered several people, an incident occurred involving the use of physical force against an advocate.

Advocacy
The Bar Council of Ukraine appealed to the High Council of Justice due to delays in forming the Competition Commission of t…
On June 13, 2025, Lidiya Izovitova, President of the Bar Council of Ukraine, addressed Grigory Usik, Head of the High Council of Justice, regarding the violation of the deadlines for forming a new composition of the Competition Commission for the selection of members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine.

Advocacy
UNBA calls for compliance with Council of Europe standards for the legal profession
The recently approved roadmap for EU accession in terms of bar reform refers to non-existent European standards and was adopted in violation of international principles. Therefore, before talking about changes, it is necessary to compare the current model of the bar with the Council of Europe standards embodied in the Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer.

Advocacy
Mobilization of advocates in court: UNBA records another case of pressure
The Ukrainian advocacy has once again faced extrajudicial influence on advocates with the aim of obstructing the exercise of their legitimate powers related to the provision of professional legal assistance to clients.

Advocacy
BCU demands verification of authenticity of SSU letter on «dangerous» advocacy
The Bar Council of Ukraine will appeal to the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Vasyl Malyuk, regarding the verification of information about «negative trends in the legal profession» disseminated by some media outlets on behalf of the SSU.

Advocacy
Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Advocate open for signature
Thirteen member states of the Council of Europe have signed the Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Advocate, which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on March 12, 2025. Four more countries will do so today. Ukraine is not among them.

Advocacy
BCU initiates resolution of the issue of visits by advocates to convicted persons
Article 110 of the Criminal Enforcement Code guarantees convicted persons confidentiality of meetings with their advocate. One of the important elements is the possibility to communicate with an advocate in a room without a solid partition. In practice, this provision of the law is systematically violated.

Advocacy
Advocates, academics, and experts examine problems in forensic examination (video)
The Ukrainian National Bar Association, in cooperation with leading scientific and research institutes of forensic expertise, organized a round table on expert support for legal practice.
Publications

Ihor Kolesnykov A BRIEF SUMMARY REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDER ON EXTENDED CONFISCATION IN LATVIA REGARDING FINANCIAL ASSETS OF…

Valentyn Gvozdiy WORKING IN A WAR ZONE

Lydia Izovitova Formula of perfection

Sergiy Vylkov Our judicial system is so built that courts do not trust advocates

Iryna Vasylyk Advocacy in the proclamation of Independence of Ukraine

Oleksandr DULSKY When we cross the border of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court, we get into another department of the National Anti-Corruption…

Vadym Krasnyk The UNBA will work, and all obstacles and restrictions are only temporary inconveniences

Lydia Izovitova Interview with Lydia Izovitova on the occasion of the 8th anniversary of the founding of UNBA: We are the voice of t…