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 in Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast, it is more useful to collect copies with iden­ti­fy­ing details than to rely on an in­for­mal phone ex­pla­na­tion. A bank notice, an ASVP extract, and a letter from a state en­force­ment de­part­ment may each show a dif­fer­ent part of the same history. Put the pro­ceed­ing number, date of each order, officer, amount, and copy source in one list, without adding 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. Review this warning again after October 23, 2026.

Steps to take

1. Write down exactly what the en­force­ment doc­u­ment re­quires to be col­lect­ed, re­turned, or trans­ferred. Do not start with the total shown in a banking app.
2. Find the base, rate, and total in the en­force­ment fee order. If the base is not stated, mark that as a gap rather than guess­ing it.
3. Put every amount on a sep­a­rate line: prin­ci­pal claim, en­force­ment fee, pro­ceed­ing costs, fines, pay­ments, and other ac­cru­als.
4. Use the dates of the orders and move­ment of the doc­u­ment to iden­ti­fy which version of Article 27 applies. Do not au­to­mat­i­cal­ly use the current formula for events before August 28, 2018.
5. Review parts 5 and 7–10 of Article 27 and record why each ex­cep­tion does or does not apply. The absence of an ex­pla­na­tion in the order does not end the review.
6. Build a time­line of prior sub­mis­sions, returns, clo­sures, partial en­force­ment, and trans­fers between of­fi­cers. Each entry should refer to a doc­u­ment 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 Kyiv file, it is useful to give the lawyer one chrono­log­i­cal package: the en­force­ment doc­u­ment, all state en­force­ment orders, the cal­cu­la­tion, pay­ments, proof of receipt, and a dis­crep­an­cy table. This first es­tab­lish­es the facts; pos­si­ble next steps can then be as­sessed sep­a­rate­ly under the law in force on the date of the request.