The Paradox of Self-Governance of Private Executors: How Supreme Court Decisions Turn Disciplinary Proceedings into Public-Law Disputes

According to official statistics, private executors recover significantly larger amounts than state ones: for example, in 2024 private executors collected over 9.5 billion UAH, while the State Executive Service collected substantially less; one private executor on average returned six times more funds to creditors.

However, the field of compulsory enforcement of court decisions in Ukraine is in a state of constant change, where legal norms face practical challenges. On one hand, today we observe attempts by the professional community to expand their boundaries through the institution of assistants and deputies. On the other hand, new approaches in judicial practice indicate that a private executor, despite their “private” status, is a subject exercising authoritative administrative functions.

Today we analyze the Supreme Court decision in case No. 200/8285/24, the new Resolution of the heads of regional private executors’ councils, issues of procedural inactivity, and the paradox between the community’s aspirations and the reality of judicial control.

Case No. 200/8285/24 as a Reflection of Internal Conflict

The essence of case No. 200/8285/24 exemplifies a clash between a private executor and the institutional apparatus of the Association of Private Executors of Ukraine. The executor challenged the decision of the Private Executors’ Council and the Ethics Committee’s conclusion regarding her violation of professional standards and the referral of the submission to the Disciplinary Commission.

The courts of first and appellate instances closed the proceedings, reasoning that this dispute is not public-law since the actions of the APEU are not related to the protection of rights in the sphere of public-law relations but are internal matters of a self-governing organization.

The plaintiff in the cassation complaint insisted that the dispute arose precisely because the defendant performed “authoritative functions” regarding the inspection and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, which, in her opinion, falls within the scope of administrative jurisdiction.

The panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court ruled that the dispute is public-law. The court emphasized that the APEU in these relations exercises powers delegated by the state concerning the disciplinary procedure.

From now on, any pressure from self-governing bodies on a private executor is subject to control by administrative courts.

The Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in case No. 200/8806/24. A private executor challenged the decision of the Association of Private Executors of Ukraine (represented by the Private Executors’ Council) recognizing his actions as unlawful and canceling the respective decision.

The courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim, which became the basis for cassation appeal.

The Supreme Court recognized the contested court decisions as subject to cancellation and sent the case for a new hearing to a court of different territorial jurisdiction, namely to the district administrative court.

Inactivity and Financial Barriers

Alongside the issue of executors’ status, the problem of their inactivity is acute. The ruling of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal dated June 11, 2026, in case No. 400/4726/26 clarified the issue of access to justice.

Courts of first instance required claimants to pay court fees for complaints about non-enforcement of decisions.

The appellate court, relying on the conclusions of the Constitutional Court No. 6-r(II)/2024 dated May 13, 2024, and the Supreme Court in the case, confirmed that a claimant should not pay for the right to control the enforcement of an already won case. Enforcement of a decision is not a new dispute but an integral part of the right to a fair trial.

This decision removes the double financial burden from citizens and forces executors, both state and private, to be more active since judicial control must be accessible.

Moreover, the Supreme Court put an end to the dispute regarding the collection of “automatic” remuneration by private executors. The Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court rendered a decision in case No. 420/21066/23. The court dismissed the cassation complaint of private executors, affirming the conclusion that the main remuneration of a private executor is not an automatic consequence of opening proceedings but directly depends on the actual result of enforcement.

The conflict arose between private executors of the Odessa district and a debtor who challenged a series of procedural decisions: from opening proceedings to freezing funds and collecting the main remuneration amounting to over 212 thousand UAH.

The plaintiff argued that the executors’ actions were unlawful since the court decision was partially executed voluntarily at that time. The executors insisted on collecting the full remuneration (10%), effectively equating the mere fact of opening proceedings with the right to receive the full fee.

The Supreme Court supported the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances. The main remuneration of 10% is charged exclusively in case of actual enforcement of the court decision. If the proceedings did not end with full enforcement or were partially closed due to voluntary actions of the debtor, the remuneration must be recalculated proportionally.

The ruling on collecting the main remuneration issued at the stage of opening proceedings is not an unconditional guarantee of receiving the full amount. It is only a procedural fixation of the right, which is realized only after enforcement.

The return of unjustifiably debited funds in favor of the plaintiff was recognized as lawful.

The decision in case No. 420/21066/23 is important for stabilizing the compulsory enforcement market. The Supreme Court once again emphasized that a private executor is not only an authoritative subject but also a service provider whose remuneration must correspond to the principles of fairness and proportionality.

The “Svitiaz” Resolution

In June 2026, at Lake Svitiaz, the heads of regional private executors’ councils adopted a document. The “Svitiaz” Resolution calls for institutional strengthening and expansion of functionality. This implies increasing the autonomy of the executor, delegation of powers, and digitalization.

The key proposals involve modernizing the assistant institution, expanding their functionality, and legalizing deputy models.

The community aims to create a “graduated model” where the assistant becomes a full procedural subject, ensuring continuity of work, drawing on the experience of France, Poland, and Baltic countries.

Priority tasks:

- Recommend that the internal structures of the APEU (profile committees, Expert Council) together with the Training and Qualification Center thoroughly study global trends and practices of delegation of powers in the field of compulsory enforcement, which would significantly increase the effectiveness of private executor assistants.

- Draw the attention of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the relevant committee of the Verkhovna Rada to the critical importance of supporting regulatory initiatives regarding the expansion of assistants’ functionality and legalization of deputy models.

The Main Paradox: Professional Autonomy vs. Delegated Authoritative Powers

There is a contradiction between the position of the professional community of private executors and the approach formulated by the Supreme Court.

On one hand, the professional community’s resolutions emphasize the desire to strengthen self-governance and delegate some functions to assistants.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court proceeds from the opposite logic: self-governing institutions within disciplinary procedures effectively exercise state-delegated authoritative powers. Accordingly, their decisions have the characteristics of administrative acts and are subject to judicial review under administrative proceedings.

The court also emphasized that such procedures are regulated by public law norms, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure,” which further underscores their authoritative-administrative nature.

Thus, a paradox arises: expanding the internal autonomy of the profession and delegating powers to assistants actually leads to the opposite effect — strengthening the public-law status of such actions and, accordingly, increasing the level of judicial control, the number of appeals, and the overall “transparency” of disciplinary procedures.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay updated on the most important events.