Особливості оскарження виконавчого напису нотаріуса

The article is devoted to investigating the peculiarities of the violation of the notary’s signature as an alternative to the judicial method of protecting civil rights in the context of current judicial practice. The author analyzes the nature of the law as a judicial mechanism for the protection of the creditor’s rights, with utmost respect for the obligatory mind of his work - the irrefutability of the debt. It is agreed that despite the appearance of formally valid documents submitted to the notary, it is not always possible to exclude the appearance of a dispute about the right, which allows the writing to be recognized in such a way that it does not precipitate defiance. The article examines the procedural features of the brutality before the trial with the request for the recognition of the viconic writing in such a way that it does not further the viciousness, limiting the form of the summons, subject to the nature of the sides and lines of the brutality. The importance of the creditor’s completion of the preliminary procedure for notifying the debtor, the registration of unsecured liability, the completion of the statute of limitations and other legally significant circumstances is highlighted. Particular attention is paid to judicial practice, in addition to the legal positions of the Supreme Court, which emphasizes the need for a comprehensive assessment of the legal framework for final writing by a notary. The court decisions on the submission by the collector of relevant documents to a notary for him to execute an executive inscription; on the indisputability of the debt as a mandatory condition for the notary to execute an executive inscription; on the parties to cases on appealing executive inscriptions; on the deadline for applying to a notary for the execution of an executive inscription; on the actions of the court to properly resolve the dispute on the recognition of the executive inscription as unenforceable; on the deadline for contacting a notary and the statute of limitations; on the correlation of the measure of securing the claim for suspension of collection based on a notary’s executive inscription with the claim for recognition of the notary’s executive inscription as unenforceable. The main grounds for recognizing an executive inscription as unenforceable are identified: absence or invalidity of the obligation; existence of a dispute between the parties regarding the amount of the debt or the basis of the obligation; violation by the notary of the requirements for drawing up the inscription; failure to comply with the statute of limitations; improper notification of the debtor about the collection or the requirement to eliminate the violation. From the analysis of judicial practice, it was concluded that the courts are not limited to a formal verification of the notary’s actions, but investigate the factual circumstances, in particular the existence of a debt, its amount, the provision of notifications, etc.; a measure to secure a claim (suspension of collection) is not identical to a claim to declare an inscription unenforceable, but is an effective way to prevent negative consequences before the case is considered on the merits; the deadline for applying for an executive inscription is tied to the general three-year limitation period, regardless of the agreements of the parties or their legal status.