Report on the Execution of Judgements: an Inter-sectoral Dialogue Took Place Within the Framework of the Implementation of the Grant Issued by EU Project Pravo-Justice

On June 27, within the framework of the grant issued by EU Project Pravo-Justice on the analysis of the effectiveness of judicial oversight, NGO Interregional Expert Center PRO JUSTICE held a round table entitled “The Report on Execution of a Court Decision as a Tool of Judicial Oversight: An Inter-Sectoral Perspective”. The event brought together judges of civil, administrative and economic jurisdictions, representatives of the Pension Fund, the State Customs, the Tax Service, local governments, as well as lawyers, private enforcement officers, and academia.

The participants to the round table discussed the outcomes of the application of judicial oversight over the execution of court decisions in three jurisdictions – administrative, economic, and civil. Special attention has been given to the analysis of the practice of applying the said procedural tool; the difficulties that arise during its implementation, as well as expectations from its further development. During the discussion, the participants emphasised that proper execution of judgements was a key pre-condition for trust in justice; the report on execution being a tool that would allow a court to effectively oversee the execution of its decision.

“The report on execution is not just a formal document. It is an indicator of how effectively the judicial system works and whether the State is able to actually ensure the implementation of a decision. It is through the report that the court exercises oversight that guarantees not only the completion of a case, but also the protection of rights and compliance with the principle of the rule of law. In the interdisciplinary context, this tool may have various specific features, its ultimate goal remaining the same – to ensure full and timely execution of decisions,” said Olena Fonova, judge of the Economic Court of Luhansk region, co-founder and deputy chair of the board of the NGO IREC PRO JUSTICE.

Iryna Zharonkina, Enforcement and Protection of Property Rights Component Lead at EU Project Pravo-Justice, highlighted the analytical work initiated by the Project together with NGO IREC PRO JUSTICE to assess the effectiveness of the new tool.

“Execution of a court decision is an integral part of the right to a fair trial, which has been confirmed, in particular, by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In this context, judicial oversight is an important tool, especially in cases where the debtors are public authorities. At the same time, it is important to avoid turning this tool into a means of pressure, because in many cases, the enforcement of monetary decisions is objectively complicated,” said Iryna Zharonkina.

Olena Hubska, Justice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, described judicial oversight as one of the key tools for guaranteeing the effectiveness of justice.

“After legislative changes, which took place in November 2024, courts obtained much broader powers, in particular in terms of imposing obligations on public administrations to submit reports on execution of decisions. We can see now some positive dynamics: the number of such ruling is growing. At the same time, there are some challenges in place, namely the lack of funding; difficulties with overseeing the discretionary powers of public administrations; problems with the execution of decisions by collegial bodies. However, provided that the judicial and executive branches cooperate, the situation may potentially change for the better,” noted Olena Hubska.

Tetiana Kravchenko, judge of the Donetsk District Administrative Court, briefed on the practice of applying judicial oversight tools in administrative proceedings.

“Various mechanisms control are used in administrative proceedings: obligation to submit a report; recognition of the unlawfulness of actions or of the omission; imposition of a fine. Sometimes the obligation to report suffice for a decision to be implemented. However, in cases where additional budget funding is needed, the efficiency of such measures is limited," commented Tetiana Kravchenko.

Daria Tarasenko, lawyer, drew attention to the importance of taking into account certain positions of the Supreme Court when initiating judicial oversight.

“Certain opinions of the Supreme Court on judicial oversight may not be obvious, but they are critically important for the correct formulation of claims, as well as when making a decision to file an appeal. Taking these positions into account at an early stage helps to strengthen the defence strategy,” explained Daria Tarasenko.

Olena Merson, Head of the Legal Department at the Main Office of the PFU in the Kharkiv region, spoke about the challenges faced by public authorities as a result of the judicial oversight mechanism implementation.

“As of June 2025, no payments under court decisions have been made at the expense of the State Budget, since the Pension Fund budget has not been approved yet. As a result, heads of administrative authorities get fined for non-compliance, although they have no real leverage. In the absence of changes in the legislation, this mechanism sometimes happens to be a punitive instrument, rather than the one for protecting rights,” stated Olena Merson.

Olena Fonova spoke about the procedural features and judicial practice of applying a judicial report in economic proceedings.

“In economic jurisdiction, judicial oversight through the submission of a report is still used to a limited extent. As of June 5, 2025, only 41 respective rulings were listed in the State Register of Court Decisions, of which only 23 have been successfully completed. There is only one case in which it became possible to attain actual enforcement of a decision,” said Olena Fonova.

Maksym Khodakivskyi, judge of the Sobornyi District Court of the city of Dnipro, spoke about the first results of applying judicial oversight in civil proceedings.

“In civil cases, the application of judicial oversight is still at a very early stage, but there are more than 300 decisions regarding the submission of reports, as of today. Non-property cases – especially family ones – prevail. This tool is mostly used by first instance courts,” - noted Maksym Khodakivskyi.

Oksana Rusetska, Head of the APEOU, shared the expectations of the professional community from the application of judicial oversight in economic and civil cases.

“The introduction of judicial oversight in economic and civil proceedings is certainly a positive step. Until 2024, effective mechanisms for overseeing the execution of non-property decisions were practically non-existent. The role of the court is seriously increasing now, and we expect that this will contribute to a higher level of actually executed court decisions,” concluded Oksana Rusetska.