The state enforcement officer cannot return the writ of execution due to the parents of the child in whose favor the funds are recovered — Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, composed of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court, confirmed: if a court decision is made in favor of a minor child, and the writ of execution indicates the child's parents as legal representatives, this is not grounds for returning the enforcement document without acceptance for enforcement. The formal approach of the state enforcement officer, who referred to the non-compliance of the writ of execution with the law due to the indication of both parents, was recognized by the court as unlawful.
The case concerns the recovery of moral damages from the Russian Federation. After the court awarded compensation to the minor child and her parents, the state enforcement officer returned one of the writs of execution without acceptance for enforcement. The reason was that the document listed both parents acting in the interests of the child.
The courts of three instances sided with the applicant. The Supreme Court emphasized that the claimant in the disputed legal relations is the child, and the parents exercise her rights as legal representatives. Furthermore, the court separately stressed that excessive formalism in enforcement proceedings cannot hinder the execution of a court decision or violate a person's right to effective judicial protection.
Circumstances of the case
In case No. 645/1912/24, the Frunzensky District Court of Kharkiv in 2024 partially satisfied a claim against the Russian Federation for moral damages. The court awarded 500,000 hryvnias in moral damages to each parent and separately 500,000 hryvnias to their minor daughter.
To enforce the decision, the court issued three writs of execution. One of them stated that moral damages were recovered in favor of the parents acting in the interests of the minor child.
On July 22, 2025, the state enforcement officer returned this writ of execution without acceptance for enforcement. The State Enforcement Service considered that the document did not comply with the requirements of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings," since the writ of execution must specify one claimant and one debtor.
The child's mother appealed these actions to the court.
What the courts decided
The court of first instance recognized the actions of the state enforcement officer as unlawful and obliged to reconsider the issue of opening enforcement proceedings. The appellate court left this decision unchanged.
The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions.
The panel of judges noted that according to Article 242 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, parents are the legal representatives of a minor child, and under Article 16 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings," children exercise their rights in enforcement proceedings through legal representatives.
The court emphasized that in the disputed writ of execution, the claimant is the minor child, and the parents were indicated as persons acting in her interests. Therefore, the enforcement document contained all necessary details and complied with the law.
At the same time, the courts denied the request to cancel the notification of the return of the enforcement document itself. The courts noted that such a notification is informational in nature and is not a separate legal act that can be independently appealed.
Position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court separately emphasized that even the absence or inaccurate indication of certain details in the enforcement document is not an unconditional ground for its return if the document allows identification of the parties and execution of the decision.
The court effectively continued the previously established approach regarding the inadmissibility of excessive formalism at the stage of enforcement of court decisions. The ruling stressed that returning enforcement documents for purely formal reasons delays the execution of the decision and may violate a person's right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the state enforcement officer and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
In case No. 645/1912/24, the Supreme Court effectively confirmed that technical or formal remarks on the execution document cannot prevail over the state's obligation to ensure the real enforcement of a court decision.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.
