Some features of performing executive proceedings during the period of the legal regime of martial state

The full-scale war in Ukraine was the cause of many social and political changes. As the research showed, the system of executive proceedings was not an exception. Since appropriate reactions to the realities of war were necessary, with the beginning of the war, the work of the state executive service (hereinafter referred to as the State Executive Service) and private contractors was effectively blocked. The reason for this was the stoppage of the automated system of executive proceedings, which made it impossible to actually carry out executive actions. Thus, it was established that changes in the mechanisms of enforcement of executive documents occurred even earlier, since the Russian Federation began to occupy our lands back in 2014, but with the beginning of a full-scale invasion, the legislation began to change and improve. Such changes also affected the ban on opening enforcement proceedings in potentially dangerous and occupied territories, which obviously violated the rights of debt collectors, and as it was established during the research, in some places such legal prohibitions became a reason for public or private enforcement officers to abuse their powers, refusing to open enforcement proceedings and returning the executive document to the debt collector without execution. In this context, the practice of the Supreme Court has become useful, which in its conclusions confirmed that regardless of the registration of the location of the debtor, the body of the state executive service must open proceedings and take measures to search for the debtor’s property throughout the territory of Ukraine, or apply restrictive measures that will force the debtor to fulfill his obligations, provided that such a debtor has entered the legal field of Ukraine. Also, from the conducted research, it can be seen that the legislative changes affected certain procedural issues and the work of private executors, however, the issue of alimony collection remained a priority and was not actually affected by the legislative changes. Even for military personnel, the duty to support their children remains a priority.