22.10.2026
On 21 October 2026, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, during the public part of its plenary session, in the form of written proceedings, considered the case upon the constitutional complaint of Oleksandr Petrosian concerning the constitutionality of a separate provision of Article 74.3.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” No. 1404-VIII dated 2 June 2016 (hereinafter, the “Law”).
Judge-Rapporteur in the case Serhiу Riznyk reported on the substance of the constitutional complaint and the grounds for initiating constitutional proceedings.
The Judge noted that the first sentence of Article 74.3.1 of the Law provides that “decisions, actions or inaction of a state enforcement officer may also be challenged by the claimant and other participants in enforcement proceedings (except for the debtor) before the head of the department to whom the state enforcement officer is directly subordinate”. In the applicant’s view, the contested provision of the Law is unconstitutional.
The constitutional complaint, the documents and materials attached thereto indicate the following.
By a ruling of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Poltava, Oleksandr Petrosian was held administratively liable. In the course of enforcing that ruling, a state enforcement officer determined the amount of enforcement costs. Considering some of these costs to be unjustified, Oleksandr Petrosian lodged a complaint against the state enforcement officer’s resolution with the acting head of the State Enforcement Service Department. As his complaint was not considered, he filed a motion before the Poltava District Administrative Court, seeking a declaration that the acting head of the State Enforcement Service Department’s inaction was unlawful, the annulment of the state enforcement officer’s resolution in the relevant part, and compensation for moral damage. By its decision, the Poltava District Administrative Court dismissed Oleksandr Petrosian’s claim.
By a ruling that constitutes the final judicial decision in the case, the Second Administrative Court of Appeal also dismissed Oleksandr Petrosian’s claim. The Court of Appeal noted “the legislation provides for a special administrative procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of decisions, actions or inaction of a state enforcement officer, which is carried out by the head of the relevant State Enforcement Service Department. At the same time, the legislature has granted the right to lodge a complaint under this procedure to the claimant and other participants in enforcement proceedings, except for the debtor, as follows directly from the Article 74.3 of the Law”.
The applicant considers that the specific provision of Article 74.3.1 of the Law is contrary to Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine as it violates the principle of equality. In particular, he argues that excluding debtors from the category of persons entitled to seek pre-trial (administrative) protection of their rights through the management of the State Enforcement Service constitutes discrimination and violates fundamental constitutional human and civil rights.
Having examined the case materials, the Second Senate proceeded to the in-camera part of its plenary session.
The video recording of the plenary session is available on the Court’s official website under the heading “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.
