Property owners will no longer have to "fight" for it in court due to executor's error – bill

Errors during enforcement proceedings can be costly not only for debtors but also for people who have no relation to the debt at all. In practice, there are situations when a state or private executor imposes a seizure on property belonging to another person. In such cases, the owner is effectively forced to undergo a full court process to prove the obvious – that the seized property belongs to them, not the debtor.

This problem is proposed to be solved by bill No. 15399 "On Amendments to Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine 'On Enforcement Proceedings' Regarding Certain Issues of Lifting Seizure from Property," which was registered in the Verkhovna Rada on July 10, 2026. The document has already been submitted for consideration to the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy.

Why the problem requires legislative changes

The right to private property in Ukraine is guaranteed by Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The Basic Law explicitly states that no one can be unlawfully deprived of property rights, and compulsory restriction of this right is possible only in cases and procedures established by law. One such restriction is the seizure of property in enforcement proceedings.

According to Article 56 of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings," property seizure is applied as a measure to ensure the actual execution of a court or other authority's decision. Therefore, a state or private executor has the right to impose a seizure on the debtor's property after the enforcement proceedings are initiated.

However, in practice, seizure is not always imposed exclusively on the debtor's property. Causes may include errors in state registers, insufficient verification of property ownership, joint marital property, inheritance disputes, or seizure of third-party property due to mistaken identification. In such cases, the person is forced to spend time and money proving that their property should not have been seized.

How the procedure currently works

Part one of Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings" currently provides that a person who believes that the property seized belongs to them and not the debtor may file a lawsuit to recognize ownership rights to this property and to lift the seizure. According to the bill's authors, this provision creates the biggest problem.

In fact, the law obliges a person not just to demand the cancellation of the seizure but to file a full lawsuit to recognize ownership rights. In many cases, ownership rights are not disputed at all.

The only error is that the executor imposed a seizure on someone else's property. This is emphasized by the bill's authors in the explanatory note. In their opinion, the current procedure creates additional financial costs for owners and significantly complicates the protection of their rights.

What exactly is proposed to change

Bill No. 15399 proposes to change only one provision – part one of Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings." However, this change could significantly affect the procedure of judicial protection for property owners. If today the law provides for filing a lawsuit to recognize ownership rights and lift the seizure, after the bill's adoption, a person will be able to apply only with a statement to lift the seizure.

Moreover, the bill stipulates that such a statement will be considered by the court that issued the enforcement document, under the rules of judicial control over the execution of court decisions. Essentially, the legislator proposes to abandon full lawsuit proceedings in cases where a person does not dispute ownership rights but only requests the removal of mistakenly imposed seizure.

How a lawsuit differs from a statement

Lawsuit proceedings involve a full judicial examination of the dispute between parties. The plaintiff must formulate claims, identify the defendant, provide evidence, pay court fees, go through all stages of the case, and obtain a court decision. This is the procedure currently provided by part one of Article 59 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings."

At the same time, judicial control over the execution of court decisions has a different nature. Its purpose is to verify the legality of actions or inactions of a state or private executor during the enforcement of a court decision, not to resolve a civil dispute between parties. Therefore, the bill's authors believe that in the case of an obvious executor's error, undergoing full lawsuit proceedings is excessive.

Does the bill mean lawsuits will no longer be needed

Despite the obvious intention to simplify the procedure, the bill is unlikely to completely replace the lawsuit method of protecting ownership rights. The fact is that current civil legislation distinguishes two different categories of disputes: disputes over ownership rights and disputes regarding the legality of actions of state or private executors.

If there is indeed a dispute between parties about who owns the property, a mere statement may be insufficient. In such cases, the court will still have to establish the owner of the property, examine evidence of ownership acquisition, contracts, registration documents, and other circumstances.

Instead, bill No. 15399 is primarily aimed at another category of situations – when ownership rights are not disputed, but the seizure was imposed by mistake. In such cases, according to its authors, there is no need to force a person to undergo full lawsuit proceedings.

What advantages can a property owner gain

Bill No. 15399 does not change the grounds for imposing seizure on property and does not limit the powers of state or private executors. If adopted, property owners will no longer have to go through a full lawsuit each time just to prove the obvious – that the seizure was not imposed on the debtor's property. Instead, they will be able to apply to the court with a statement to lift the seizure, which will be considered within the framework of judicial control over the execution of court decisions.

At the same time, the bill is unlikely to completely replace the lawsuit method of protection. If a real dispute arises between parties regarding ownership rights, the court will still consider it in lawsuit proceedings with examination of all evidence. Thus, the proposed changes are aimed not at revising the enforcement proceedings mechanism as a whole but at removing unnecessary procedural barriers for bona fide property owners.

Whether the new procedure will truly be faster and more effective will depend on the final wording of the law and future judicial practice.

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 to stay updated on the most important events.