Challenging the Inaction of a State Enforcement Officer Following the Resolution of a Commercial Dispute: How Effective Is This Mechanism for Protecting Rights?

Options for Appeal

Current legislation provides for various options for challenging the decisions, actions, or inaction of a state enforcement officer within the framework of enforcement proceedings initiated following a court proceeding. However, while specific decisions or actions are generally more or less clear—they are formalized in relevant rulings or other documents and have a clearly defined content—inaction has a somewhat different legal nature. It is not expressed in a specific act and therefore requires a special approach to proving it: the complainant must substantiate exactly what the enforcement officer was required to do under the law, as well as why the failure to take the relevant actions violates the complainant’s rights as a party to the enforcement proceedings. It is precisely this specificity that complicates proving the inaction of a state enforcement officer and influences the choice of legal remedy.

Thus, one of the legally prescribed ways to respond to the unlawful inaction of a state enforcement officer is to file a complaint with the head of the State Enforcement Service department to which that officer is directly subordinate. This option is established by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” and may be exercised by the creditor and other participants in the enforcement proceedings, with the exception of the debtor. If there is disagreement with the decision, actions, or inaction of the head of the department, a complaint may be filed with the head of the higher-level State Enforcement Service agency.

Such a complaint must be filed exclusively in writing and must comply with the content requirements established by law, including the details of the relevant enforcement document, a statement of the circumstances on which the complainant bases their claims, a reference to the violated legal provision, and so on.

The law establishes a ten-day deadline for filing such a complaint, calculated from the date on which the person learned or should have learned of the violation of their rights. It is noteworthy that inaction, unlike decisions and actions, is not explicitly mentioned in the provision regarding this deadline, which in practice may complicate the process of appealing it. The law does not provide for the extension of this deadline.

An alternative option for challenging the inaction of a state enforcement officer is to file a complaint directly with the territorial office of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. For example, this method may be used in cases where the complainant believes that the unlawful inaction of the state enforcement officer was not remedied after a complaint was filed with his or her supervisor.

However, the procedure for filing such a complaint is not regulated by law. Therefore, when preparing this complaint, it is advisable to take into account the aforementioned requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” and to consider both the rules regarding its content and the requirement that it be submitted exclusively in writing, as well as the ten-day deadline for filing. 

However, in practice, the most common way to protect one’s rights in the event of unlawful inaction by a state enforcement officer is to file a lawsuit. The Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” establishes the right to challenge the decisions, actions, or inaction of an enforcement officer before the court that issued the enforcement document. At the same time, the procedural codes establish special rules governing the procedure for filing and considering such complaints.

We will now focus specifically on the particularities of challenging a state enforcement officer’s inaction under the rules of commercial litigation.

Specifics of Judicial Appeals

The Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine expressly provides for the right of the parties to enforcement proceedings to file a complaint with the court if their rights have been violated by the inaction of a state enforcement officer during the enforcement of a court decision. In this context, the reference is specifically to the court that heard the case as the court of first instance and issued the enforcement order. 

Such a complaint must be filed exclusively in writing and must comply with clearly defined procedural requirements. The law establishes a mandatory list of required details; in particular, the complaint must identify the parties to the enforcement proceedings, the state enforcement officer whose inaction is being challenged, an identifier for full access to information regarding the relevant enforcement proceedings, a statement of the circumstances supporting the complainant’s claims, and so on. 

Compliance with the filing deadlines is of great importance. The general rule provides for the possibility of filing a complaint against a decision, action, or inaction of a state enforcement officer within ten days from the moment the person became aware or should have become aware of the violation of their rights. At the same time, unlike the appeal procedure provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” a missed deadline may be reinstated by the court if there are valid reasons and a corresponding motion has been filed. In the absence of such reasons, the complaint will not be considered.

However, judicial practice is based on the premise that inaction is of a continuing nature and persists until actions are taken that indicate its termination. According to the Supreme Court’s position, as set forth in its ruling of March 26, 2025, in Case No. 910/1114/21, dismissing a complaint regarding such inaction due to the expiration of the filing deadline is incorrect and contrary to procedural law. Equally significant is the Supreme Court’s conclusion in its ruling of January 10, 2022, in Case No. 908/5303/15, according to which the inaction of a state enforcement officer constitutes a continuing violation, and therefore the start of the time limit for appealing it is automatically deferred. 

Thus, these approaches by the Supreme Court directly influence the practice of challenging a state enforcement officer’s inaction and indicate that such inaction may be challenged at any time throughout the entire period it continues, without the need to extend the deadline for filing a complaint.

As a result of the complaint review, if the complainant’s arguments are found to be well-founded, the court may declare the state enforcement officer’s inaction unlawful and order the officer to remedy the violation by taking the enforcement measures provided for in the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.” 

It is also noteworthy that there is a separate provision requiring the relevant state enforcement service authority to notify the court and the complainant of the execution of the ruling issued following the consideration of the complaint no later than ten days from the date of its receipt.

Case Law on Appeals

However, no matter how detailed the procedural mechanism for appealing the inaction of a state enforcement officer may be, its value is determined solely by actual results. In turn, it is judicial practice that provides the answer to the key question: to what extent is this mechanism for protecting rights effective?

An analysis of current practice shows that commercial courts do indeed apply it as an effective means of judicial oversight. For example, throughout 2025, the Kyiv Commercial Court repeatedly upheld complaints regarding the inaction of a state enforcement officer, found such inaction to be unlawful, and ordered the violations to be remedied.

Among such decisions are, in particular:

• the ruling of the Kyiv Commercial Court dated April 22, 2025, in Case No. 910/10553/23;
• the ruling of the Kyiv Commercial Court dated May 29, 2025, in Case No. 910/2992/24;
• the ruling of the Kyiv Commercial Court dated December 18, 2025, in Case No. 910/4733/24;
• the ruling of the Kyiv Commercial Court dated December 29, 2025, in Case No. 910/11810/24.

Despite the differences in the factual circumstances of each case, these rulings are united by an approach in which the court emphasizes the state enforcement officer’s duty to act sufficiently proactively, in a timely manner, and within the limits of the powers granted by law. This involves not merely following standard procedures, but actually directing the enforcement officer’s actions toward achieving the result of the actual enforcement of the court decision. The court does not consider the mere formal initiation of enforcement proceedings or their consolidation into a consolidated case to constitute proper fulfillment of the duties imposed on a state enforcement officer. Accordingly, these court decisions emphasize that, in the absence of the full scope of enforcement actions, such inaction on the part of the state enforcement officer may be deemed unlawful, with corresponding procedural consequences.

Conclusion

Thus, challenging the inaction of a state enforcement officer within the framework of commercial litigation is a viable and practically effective mechanism for protecting rights. Practice shows that after the adoption of the relevant court decision, the state enforcement officer, as a rule, “speeds up” the performance of the necessary enforcement actions and applies the necessary and available measures of compulsory enforcement. Furthermore, in some cases, the enforcement officer begins taking the appropriate actions immediately after the complaint is filed, even before the relevant court decision is issued. At the same time, the effectiveness of this mechanism depends to a large extent on thorough preparation, the collection of a complete body of evidence, and a detailed justification of the complaint; therefore, engaging experienced lawyers in such cases is a prerequisite for success.

Contributors to this article:

Anastasiia Klian, Counsel at Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice at GOLAW, Attorney at Law

Stanislav Zhukov, Paralegal at Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice at GOLAW