How to review a state enforcement fee order

When this is needed

A doc­u­men­tary review is useful when a state en­force­ment order in­cludes an en­force­ment fee, but it is unclear which figure pro­duced the 10%, which version of the law was applied, or whether prior en­force­ment was taken into account. The goal is not to label the order right or wrong im­me­di­ate­ly, but to re­con­struct a ver­i­fi­able chain: en­force­ment doc­u­ment → lawful base → rate → round­ing → sep­a­rate ac­cru­als.

For records from Lviv and Lviv Oblast, keep track of how copies from dif­fer­ent de­part­ments, the bank, and ASVP data fit to­geth­er. Instead of relying on an oral ex­pla­na­tion, make a reg­is­ter with the pro­ceed­ing number, order date, named state en­force­ment de­part­ment, amount, receipt method, and any missing items. This creates a doc­u­men­tary trail without un­ver­i­fied ad­dress­es or as­sump­tions about local prac­tice.

Which deadline or procedure applies

Under the current version of part two of Article 27, the arith­metic guide for the mon­e­tary or prop­er­ty model of state en­force­ment is 10% of the amount subject to com­pul­so­ry col­lec­tion or return, or the value of prop­er­ty to be trans­ferred. This sim­pli­fied pro­ce­dure does not extend to private en­force­ment, non-pe­cu­niary claims, an older version of the law, child support, cur­ren­cy un­cer­tain­ty, dis­put­ed val­u­a­tion, or an Article 27 ex­cep­tion.

The main groups to check sep­a­rate­ly under parts 5 and 7–10 of Article 27 include con­fis­ca­tion; pe­ri­od­ic pay­ments and the special child-support branch; interim relief or im­me­di­ate en­force­ment; ECtHR judg­ments; private en­force­ment pro­ceed­ings; col­lec­tion of the fee itself, costs, or fines; en­force­ment before pro­ceed­ings were opened; special debt set­tle­ment or write-off cases; and trans­fer of the doc­u­ment. This is a check­list, not a sub­sti­tute for reading the current version of the law.

For a straight­for­ward arith­metic case, use the state en­force­ment fee cal­cu­la­tor. It rounds the dis­played amount to the nearest kopeck, but returns no number when the in­for­ma­tion is in­suf­fi­cient.

There is a sep­a­rate warning about pro­ce­dur­al steps: Law No. 4833-IX created a con­flict in the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of Article 74 that the Supreme Court has ac­knowl­edged. The court, route, and dead­line must there­fore be checked as of the actual filing date. This guide does not choose a pro­ce­dure or provide a ready-made dead­line.

Steps to take

1. Assign each copy a short source label: en­force­ment service, bank, ASVP, en­force­ment doc­u­ment, or payment. This will show which doc­u­ments are missing.
2. Copy the op­er­a­tive part ver­ba­tim: what must be col­lect­ed, re­turned, or trans­ferred. A bank balance does not replace this base.
3. Break the fee order into three fields — base, 10%, and total — and leave blank any­thing absent from the copy. Do not fill gaps by as­sump­tion.
4. Keep sep­a­rate lines for the prin­ci­pal claim, en­force­ment fee, costs, fines, and pay­ments. This pre­vents copies from Lviv and the oblast from being com­bined into one un­ver­i­fied balance.
5. Use the doc­u­ment’s move­ment dates to iden­ti­fy the version of Article 27. Do not au­to­mat­i­cal­ly apply the current formula to events before August 28, 2018.
6. Check parts 5 and 7–10 of Article 27 and build a time­line of sub­mis­sions, returns, clo­sures, partial en­force­ment, and trans­fers. Link each state­ment to a labeled copy or payment.

Straight­for­ward example. A state en­force­ment officer is en­forc­ing a doc­u­ment to collect UAH 120,000; the current law and absence of ex­cep­tions are con­firmed, and there is no prior history. The arith­metic gives UAH 12,000. This checks the number; it does not de­ter­mine whether the order is valid.

Example that re­quires stop­ping. The same doc­u­ment was already in an earlier pro­ceed­ing, but the return order and records of amounts ac­tu­al­ly col­lect­ed are missing. No number is pro­duced: first re­con­struct the history and any ad­just­ment.

What to check before filing

Before sending the file for legal review, make sure every figure has a source: a page of the en­force­ment doc­u­ment, a para­graph of an order, a payment, or a val­u­a­tion doc­u­ment. Keep receipt dates sep­a­rate from prepa­ra­tion dates. For copies from dif­fer­ent sources, record where and when each was ob­tained.

Do not put pro­ce­dur­al as­sump­tions in the arith­metic table. In par­tic­u­lar, do not pre­s­e­lect a court, dead­line, or type of filing: because of the current Article 74 con­flict, those ques­tions require a sep­a­rate check as of the filing date. This guide ends with a com­plete doc­u­men­tary file, not pro­ce­dur­al advice.

When to consult a lawyer

A legal review is ad­vis­able if the order does not dis­close its base, older ASVP case numbers exist, there was partial en­force­ment, child support, a foreign cur­ren­cy, a dis­put­ed val­u­a­tion, an Article 27 ex­cep­tion, or a trans­fer between state and private en­force­ment. A manual review is also needed when the arith­metic works but the ap­plic­a­ble version of the law or doc­u­men­tary time­line is un­con­firmed.

For a Lviv file, give the lawyer a source reg­is­ter to­geth­er with the time­line: the en­force­ment doc­u­ment, orders from each in­volved state en­force­ment de­part­ment, the cal­cu­la­tion, pay­ments, proof of receipt, and a list of missing copies. This first re­con­structs the facts; pos­si­ble next steps can then be as­sessed sep­a­rate­ly under the law in force on the date of the request.