The court that issued an enforcement writ (writ of execution) can declare it unenforceable, on the application of the debtor or the creditor, under Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. There are two grounds: the writ was issued by mistake, or the debtor has no obligation. In a case where I represented the applicant, a woman was made to pay child support (alimony) for a child who is not hers: the 2006 enforcement writ named a different child, with a different first name and date of birth. On the strength of that writ, her property was arrested, she was banned from leaving Ukraine and from driving, and a debt of 17 376,60 UAH was calculated. On 01.10.2026 the court declared the writ unenforceable. We did all this for one purpose: to lift the arrest on her property. Returning the writ to the creditor does not cancel an arrest, and the ruling under Article 432 was the first step. Below: the grounds, how to apply, and the plan after the ruling.
In brief: 6 key points
- An application to declare an enforcement writ unenforceable is filed with the court that issued the writ. Both the debtor and the creditor may file it (Part 1 of Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).
- The court grants the application if the writ was issued by mistake, or if the debtor's obligation is absent in whole or in part: it has ended, has been performed voluntarily, or does not exist for other reasons (Part 2 of Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).
- The law gives the court ten days from receipt of the application; the absence of the creditor or the debtor does not prevent the hearing.
- Returning the writ to the creditor does not lift the arrest on property: the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court held this on 14.05.2025 in case No. 2/1522/11652/11. So "closed" proceedings do not mean the restrictions are gone.
- Destruction of the enforcement file does not prevent you from going to court: the court can request the information from the State Enforcement Service office.
- In case No. 2-866/06 the court declared unenforceable a child support writ issued in 2006. In fact 0,00 UAH was collected under it, yet the arrest and the entry in the register of debtors lasted for years. The ruling is the first step towards lifting the arrest: next comes an application to the State Enforcement Service office and, if it refuses, a complaint against the officer's inaction.
What "the enforcement writ is not subject to enforcement" means
It is a court ruling that deprives the enforcement writ of force: the enforcement officer may no longer collect money under it or apply restrictions. The court judgment on which the writ was issued is not cancelled. The court does not retry the case. It answers a narrower question: can this particular document be enforced by compulsion.
The procedure is set out in Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, "Correction of an error in an enforcement document and declaring it not subject to enforcement". It covers enforcement writs and court orders in civil cases. In commercial and administrative cases, similar rules apply under the relevant procedural codes.
For a debtor this is often the only real route. It is too late to appeal a twenty-year-old judgment, and there is no point complaining about the enforcement officer if he acted on a valid document. An application under Article 432 can be filed for as long as the writ itself and its consequences exist.
When the court declares an enforcement writ unenforceable
In our case the court relied on the established division of grounds into two groups: substantive and procedural. The first means the debtor owes nothing. The second means the writ should never have been issued. The court took its examples of procedural grounds from the information letter of the High Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases dated 25.09.2015 on the practice of resolving procedural issues related to the enforcement of court decisions in civil cases.
| Group of grounds | Essence | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Substantive | the debtor's obligation is absent in whole or in part | the debt was paid voluntarily by the debtor or another person; the obligation ended; there is no obligation for other reasons |
| Procedural | the writ was issued by mistake | the writ was issued on a judgment that had not entered into legal force; on a judgment that is not subject to compulsory enforcement at all; on a settlement agreement that did not provide for compulsory measures; the judgment was set aside after the writ was issued; the writ was issued twice on the same matter; the writ was presented after the time limit for presenting it for enforcement had expired |
The list is not exhaustive: after the examples the law says "or for other reasons", and the information letter says "and so on". Our position was built on exactly that. The standard lists have no item "the writ names the wrong child", but the point is the same: the obligation that is being enforced by compulsion does not exist.
Correcting an error or declaring the writ unenforceable
Article 432 gives two different tools, and the result depends on which one you choose.
| Question | Correcting an error | Declaring the writ unenforceable |
|---|---|---|
| When it fits | the writ differs from the judgment: a slip in a surname, amount or details | there is nothing to enforce: no obligation exists, or the writ should not have been issued |
| What happens to the writ | it remains valid, and enforcement continues under the corrected text | it loses force in full or in part |
| What happens to the proceedings | they continue | they must be terminated if the writ is declared unenforceable in full |
| Who usually asks | the creditor | the debtor |
In our case correction would have achieved nothing. If the court had replaced one child's name in the writ with the other's, the applicant would have received a new, "correct" debt for almost twenty years. So we asked specifically for the writ to be declared unenforceable, and the court granted the application in that form.
Case No. 2-866/06: child support for a child the debtor does not have
In December 2006 the Sumy District Court of Sumy Oblast deprived a woman of parental rights in respect of her daughter. The same judgment awarded child support: a quarter of earnings each month, but not less than 30% of the subsistence minimum for a child of the relevant age, in favour of a children's home. But in that part of the judgment and in the enforcement writ a different child was named, with a different first name and a different date of birth. The applicant is not the mother of that child.
For almost ten years nobody enforced the writ. In November 2016 a state enforcement officer in Kharkiv opened enforcement proceedings under it, and from there things went the usual way for child support debts.
| Date | What the enforcement officer did |
|---|---|
| 03.11.2016 | opened the enforcement proceedings and issued a resolution to collect the costs of the proceedings from the debtor |
| 16.02.2018 | arrested all of the debtor's property; the encumbrance was entered in the State Register of Property Rights to Immovable Property and the State Register of Encumbrances on Movable Property; the details were entered in the Unified Register of Debtors |
| 23.03.2018 | issued four resolutions on temporary restrictions: on the right to leave Ukraine, to drive vehicles, to use firearms and to hunt (Article 71 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings") |
| 01.10.2018 | calculated a debt of 17 376,60 UAH |
| 07.11.2018 | issued a resolution imposing a fine (Part 14 of Article 71 of the Law) |
| 21.03.2019 | returned the enforcement writ to the creditor under paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 37 of the Law: no property found, 0,00 UAH actually collected |
| 04.08.2023 | the file was withdrawn for destruction after the three-year storage period expired |
So up to 2026 the situation looked like this: the proceedings in the archive, the papers destroyed, not one hryvnia collected, and the consequences for the person still in place.
This is a first-instance court ruling that has not entered into legal force as of the date of publication: the appeal period is fifteen days from the day it was announced.
Returning the writ to the creditor does not lift the arrest on property
Returning an enforcement document to the creditor is not the termination of enforcement proceedings. The creditor can present the writ again, so the law does not oblige the enforcement officer to lift the arrest. This is how the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court resolved the issue in its resolution of 14.05.2025 in case No. 2/1522/11652/11: the arrest is lifted when the proceedings are terminated or the document is returned to the court or body that issued it, while return to the creditor is not such a ground, except in the cases expressly named in Part 3 of Article 37 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings".
A practical conclusion follows. If the proceedings were ended by returning the writ to the creditor, waiting for the arrest to "lapse with time" is pointless. You need a ground for terminating the proceedings. One of them is the court declaring the enforcement document unenforceable (paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Article 39 of the Law). And Article 40 of the Law links termination of the proceedings with lifting the arrest, cancelling other enforcement measures and removing the details from the Unified Register of Debtors.
This is exactly why we went to court. The applicant's aim was not to correct a twenty-year-old mistake but to lift the arrest on her property and to disappear from the Unified Register of Debtors. The proceedings are formally over, the file is destroyed and there is nothing to collect, yet she cannot freely dispose of her property. Declaring the writ unenforceable gives the enforcement officer a lawful ground to lift the arrest.
You can check whether there is an arrest or a debt entry against you in the Unified Register of Debtors and through an extract from the State Register of Property Rights to Immovable Property. People often learn about an old case by chance: when selling a flat, handling an inheritance, or at the border.
The enforcement file was destroyed: what to prove it with
Terminated enforcement proceedings are kept in the archive for three years and then destroyed. That is what happened here: in reply to a request, the State Enforcement Service office said the file had been withdrawn for destruction in 2023. The arrest resolutions, the debt calculation and the restriction resolutions no longer existed on paper.
This did not stop the case, for three reasons.
- The judgment and the writ are kept at the court. The application is heard by the same court that issued the writ, and the court file is in its archive.
- An electronic trail remains. Information on the proceedings is stored in the Automated Enforcement Proceedings System, including its archive section. From there the State Enforcement Service office restored the whole chronology for the court: the dates of the resolutions, the amount of the debt, the ground for returning the writ.
- The court can request information. In our case the court received a written reply from the enforcement service with a full description of the actions taken in the proceedings and quoted it in the ruling.
If you have kept copies of the enforcement officer's resolutions or the access identifier for the proceedings, attach them to the application. If not, start with an attorney's request or your own application to the State Enforcement Service office: even the reply "the file has been destroyed" is evidence that explains to the court why the original documents are missing.
How to apply to have an enforcement writ declared unenforceable
- Get copies of the judgment and the enforcement writ. They are issued by the court that heard the case. Compare the texts: the error may be only in the writ, or in both the judgment and the writ.
- Collect information on the enforcement. Send a request to the State Enforcement Service office or the private enforcement officer: are the proceedings open, what measures were taken, how much was collected, and on what ground they were ended.
- Identify the ground. Was the writ issued by mistake, or is there no obligation? The evidence depends on this: proof of payment, birth certificates, a decision setting aside the judgment, and so on.
- File the application with the court that issued the writ. The participants are the applicant, the other party to the enforcement document, and the body or person carrying out the enforcement. If the proceedings are ongoing, ask the court to suspend enforcement until the application is heard: Part 3 of Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine allows this.
- Take part in the hearing. The court notifies the creditor and the debtor, but their absence does not prevent the hearing. In our case the representatives of the enforcement service and of the creditor did not appear in court.
- Wait for the ruling to enter into legal force and give it to the enforcement officer so that the proceedings are terminated and the restrictions cancelled.
| Document | Where to get it | Why it is needed |
|---|---|---|
| Copy of the court judgment | the court that gave the judgment | to show what obligation was actually established |
| Copy of the enforcement writ | the same court or the enforcement file | to show what exactly is being enforced |
| Reply from the State Enforcement Service office on the course of the proceedings | a request to the enforcement service | to confirm the arrests, restrictions, and the amounts of debt and of money collected |
| Documents on children and family status | the civil registry office (DRACS), family archive | to prove that the person named in the writ is not the debtor's child |
| Proof of payment, if the debt was paid off | bank, employer, creditor | to confirm that the obligation ended |
If you are missing birth certificates or other civil status documents, they can be restored: the procedure is described on the page about obtaining duplicates of documents.
What the court decided
The court relied on two established facts. First: by the 2006 judgment the applicant was deprived of parental rights in respect of one child. Second: the child support under the enforcement writ was being collected for the maintenance of another person, towards whom the applicant has no financial obligation, because she is not that person's mother. The court called this circumstance essential for declaring the writ unenforceable.
The result: the enforcement writ of 29.12.2006 on collecting child support was declared unenforceable. The court did not decide on the return of money collected, because nothing had been collected under the writ in all that time.
On timing. The law gives ten days to hear such an application. In this case the application reached the court in April 2026 and the ruling was issued on 01.10.2026: the court needed time to request information from the enforcement service, whose file had already been destroyed. You should count on ten days only if all the evidence is submitted together with the application.
What comes next: lifting the arrest and leaving the register of debtors
A ruling under Article 432 does not lift the arrest or cancel the travel ban by itself. It creates the ground on which the enforcement officer must do so. So for us the ruling is only the first step, and the plan from here is as follows.
- Once the ruling enters into legal force, we file an application with the State Enforcement Service office that held the proceedings: to terminate the proceedings under paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Article 39 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings", lift the arrest on the property, cancel the temporary restrictions and remove the details from the Unified Register of Debtors.
- If the enforcement officer lifts the arrest and removes the register entry, the matter ends there: the aim is achieved.
- If the enforcement service refuses or does not reply, we file a complaint with the court against the officer's inaction.
- Either way, we check the result ourselves: we order an extract from the register of property rights and look at the Unified Register of Debtors.
When the proceedings have long been in the archive and the file is destroyed, this stage rarely goes through automatically: the enforcement officer has to restore the proceedings in the system to issue the resolutions. Allow time for it and check the result in the registers, not by oral assurances.
If the error in the child support documents turns out to be not the child's name but the amount or the period of collection, the steps are different. See the page on collecting child support. Questions tied to the 2006 judgment itself fall under deprivation of parental rights.
Typical mistakes of debtors
- They think "closed" proceedings mean there is no debt. Returning the writ to the creditor does not lift the arrest and does not stop the creditor presenting the writ again.
- They complain about the enforcement officer instead of the writ. If the officer acted on a valid document, his actions are formally correct. The cause is in the writ, and that is what must be removed.
- They ask to correct an error when the writ should be declared unenforceable. A corrected writ continues to be enforced.
- They apply to the wrong court. Only the court that issued the writ has competence, even if the debtor and the enforcement officer have long been in another city.
- They stop at the ruling. Without applying to the enforcement service, the arrest and the register entry will remain.
Frequently asked questions
Which court should I apply to in order to have an enforcement writ declared unenforceable?
To the court that issued the enforcement writ. Part 1 of Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine says so directly, and the rule does not depend on where the debtor lives now or where the enforcement proceedings are open. In case No. 2-866/06 the writ was issued in 2006 by the Sumy District Court of Sumy Oblast, the proceedings under it were conducted in Kharkiv, and the application in 2026 was heard again by the Sumy District Court. If the court that issued the writ has changed its name or been reorganised, the application is filed with the court to which its cases were transferred. Both the debtor and the creditor may file, in person or through a representative; an attorney can do it through the E-Court (Electronic Court) system. In the application, it is worth stating at once the case number, the date the writ was issued and the enforcement proceedings number, if known, so that the court finds the archived case faster.
Is there a time limit for filing such an application?
Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine sets no time limit for an application to declare an enforcement document unenforceable. In our case the writ was issued on 29.12.2006, the enforcement proceedings were opened in 2016 and ended by returning the writ in 2019, and the application was filed in April 2026. The court heard it on the merits and granted it. Still, there is no point delaying, for practical reasons. The file of terminated proceedings is kept for three years, and after it is destroyed the evidence has to be rebuilt through requests. Also, while the writ formally remains valid, the arrest on property and the entry in the register of debtors remain, and the creditor may present the writ for enforcement again. The outcome of one case is not carried over automatically to others, so it is worth assessing the time limits in your situation with an attorney before filing.
Will the court lift the arrest on property in the same ruling?
Usually not. Under Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine the court decides only the fate of the enforcement document: it corrects the error or declares the document unenforceable. In case No. 2-866/06 the operative part of the ruling contains exactly that and nothing more. The arrest, the travel ban and the other restrictions were imposed by the enforcement officer by his own resolutions, so they are cancelled by the enforcement officer, once he receives a ruling that has entered into legal force. The ground is paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Article 39 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings": the court declaring an enforcement document unenforceable leads to termination of the proceedings, and Article 40 of that Law links termination with lifting the arrest and removing the debtor from the register. If the enforcement service does not do this, its inaction is appealed to the court by a separate complaint. So plan for two stages, not one.
What should I do if the enforcement proceedings were destroyed, but the arrest and the register entry remain?
Destroying the paper file destroys neither the arrest nor the register entry: encumbrances live in the state registers separately from the proceedings folder. First get a written reply from the State Enforcement Service office on what proceedings were conducted, how they ended and when the file was withdrawn for destruction. In our case the enforcement service restored the chronology from the Automated Enforcement Proceedings System, where the information is kept in an archive section. Then assess the ground. If the debt is genuine and paid, you apply to the enforcement officer to lift the arrest. If the debt should never have existed, as in case No. 2-866/06, the more reliable route is an application under Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine to the court that issued the writ. After the ruling, the enforcement officer terminates the proceedings and lifts the restrictions. Hoping that the arrest will disappear with time is not advisable.
Can I get back money that was already collected under a mistaken enforcement writ?
Yes, and no separate lawsuit is needed for it. Part 4 of Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine provides that if collection under the enforcement document has already taken place in full or in part, the court, at the same time as declaring the document unenforceable, recovers at the debtor's request in the debtor's favour what the creditor received without a legal basis. The key words are "at the debtor's request": the court will not do it on its own initiative, so the claim must be stated in the same application and the amount confirmed. The evidence will be the enforcement officer's certificate of the money transferred to the creditor, bank statements, and the employer's certificate of deductions from earnings. In our case there was no such claim, because in all that time 0,00 UAH was actually collected under the writ. If money has been deducted, calculate it before filing: later you will have to recover it by a separate lawsuit for unjust enrichment.
How does an application under Article 432 differ from a complaint against the enforcement officer's actions?
They are aimed at different things. A complaint against the decision, actions or inaction of the enforcement officer challenges how the officer applied the law: calculated the debt wrongly, arrested protected funds, did not lift a restriction after payment. An application under Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine challenges the enforcement document itself: it is mistaken, or there is no obligation under it. In case No. 2-866/06 the enforcement officer formally acted correctly, because he had a valid child support writ and saw a debt for over four months, so a complaint against him would not have succeeded. The problem was in the writ, which named a child whom the applicant has no duty to maintain. The time limits differ as well: for a complaint against an enforcement officer the law sets a short period for going to court, whereas Article 432 contains no time limit. Often both tools are needed in sequence: first the ruling on the writ, then, if necessary, a complaint about inaction.
This material is based on the ruling of the Sumy District Court of Sumy Oblast of 01.10.2026 in case No. 2-866/06, in which I represented the applicant. The text of the ruling is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. The personal data of the participants are not given. The article is informational and is not legal advice for your situation; check that the cited provisions are in force on the date you apply.
Did you find yourself in the register of debtors for a debt that should never have existed, or is an arrest still in place after proceedings that were closed long ago? Write to me: we will review the judgment and the enforcement writ and decide what to ask the court for, a correction of the error or a declaration that the writ is unenforceable. Consultations are held in Ukrainian or Russian; written communication in English is available.