The article examines the legal nature of the writ of execution and the conditions for its execution. The author considered the differentiating features of the executive inscription, which distinguishes the executive inscription from deeds. It is impossible not to ignore the fact that the execution of an executive writ, as well as the conclusion of a contract, can be concluded only in the absence of a dispute between the parties. In addition, the executive inscription and the contract have their own time limit, that is, they are fixed-term. However, the essential differences are, firstly, that the contract is concluded to regulate relations between the parties in order to prevent violations of their interests in the future. Executive inscription, in turn, when the rights and interests of the creditor have already been violated, thus representing a way of restoring the violated rights.

The author draws attention to the fact that the writ of execution is a worthy alternative to the process of judicial protection, which is more complex in terms of content, however, despite the positive features of the writ of execution, the concept of writ of execution is not established in the legislation.

The article defines the conditions for making an executive inscription and analyses their procedural features, such as determination by a notary whether a document is included in the List of documents for which debt collection is carried out indisputably on the basis of executive inscriptions of notaries; compliance with the statutory deadlines; verification of all documents required for making an executive inscription, which confirm the existence of an obligation and its indisputability; verification of the absence of objections by the debtor.

Keywords: executive inscription, contractual structures, conditions for making an executive inscription, enforcement proceedings, extrajudicial protection.

References

1. Constitution of Ukraine (2016), official confirms. text. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2016. 82 p.
2. Ukraine (2003), Civil Code of Ukraine dated 16 June 2003. No. 435-IV. Vidomosti of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. No. 40–44. Art. 356.
3. Demchenko, O. (2019), “The notary’s signature is a judicial form of protection of civil rights and legitimate interests”. Entrepreneurship, dominion and law, No. 3. P. 15-20.
4. Bezsmertna, N. (2007), “Vikon’s writing is one of the ways to protect subjective civil rights”. Legal sciences. No. 74-76. pp. 123-126.
5. Fursa, S. Ya., Fursa, E. I., (1999), Notary in Ukraine: beginning. pos_b. Venturi, Kiev. 207 p.
6. Dyakovich, M. M. (2021), Vikonavsky’s letter as a judicial form of protection of civil rights and interests of individuals. Vikonavchy letter of a notary in the civil process: notary office, court, Vikonavche provadzheniya: scientific and practical teaching. Kyiv. Alerta, рр. 51-71.
7. Fursa, S. Ya, (2021), Vikonavsky notary’s writing in new legal minds: notarial theory, court practice and legislative regulation. Vikonavchy letter of a notary in the civil process: notary office, court, Vikonavche provadzheniya: scientific and practical teaching, Kyiv, Alerta, pp. 8-50
8. About notaries (1993), dated 2nd June 1993 No. 3425-ХІІ. Vidomosti of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, No, 39, Art, 383.
9. Decision of the Constitutional Court (2020), dated June 01, 2020 No. 3-239/2019(5444/19). Vidomosti of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, No, 7-r (I).