State Racket Under the Guise of Law: How the State Executive Service Demands UAH 121,000 for Someone Else’s Work while Courts Play «Football». Cynicism Under the Mask of European Norms — Where Is Ukrainian Justice Heading?

The story of financial extortion by the State Executive Service (SES) has taken a new procedural turn. Instead of providing swift protection for a citizen’s rights against an obvious absurdity, the judicial system has demonstrated a classic example of a jurisdictional labyrinth.

The Kyiv District Administrative Court (укр.-Київський окружний адмінсуд, КОАС), chaired by presiding judge M. Ya. Vistak, issued a ruling on October 5, 2026, in case No. 320/33815/26, returning the lawsuit of PERSON_1.

This effectively split a single life situation into different judicial processes, leaving the individual entirely alone against the state machinery.

The Absurdity of Ukrainian Justice: The Decision Is Enforced, the Money Is Collected, Yet the SES Demands «Its Cut»

It all began with enforcement writ No. 2604/24484/12, issued back in 2013 by the Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv (укр.-Дніпровський районний суд міста Києва) to collect a debt of UAH 1,214,000.00 and UAH 1,214 in court fees.

The Dniprovskyi Department of the SES opened proceedings (Enforcement Proceeding No. 40630210) and automatically issued a resolution dated January 2, 2019, to collect an enforcement fee — UAH 121,521.40. The state enforcement officers performed no real work and recovered no funds; eventually, they simply returned the writ to the creditor. The debt remained open until a private enforcement officer stepped in.

Parasites on the System: How the State Executive Service Free-Rides on the Results of Private Enforcement Officers

Unlike the state service, the private enforcement officer Karashchuk K, acted swiftly and efficiently.

She fully ensured the actual enforcement of the court decision and lawfully collected the basic remuneration from the debtor (their 10% fee for successful results).

It seemed that justice had triumphed and the debt was settled.

However, the Dniprovskyi District SES (Dniprovskyi District State Executive Service) decided to free-ride on someone else’s results. Since their old resolution on the enforcement fee remained in the system, the state enforcement officers carved it out into a separate, independent enforcement proceeding (No. 57991873), demanding that the ukranian  citizen pay 121 thousand hryvnias for work that the state never performed.

When Senior State Enforcement Officer T.M. Bilets issued a resolution on March 12, 2026, returning the enforcement document to the SES (Dniprovskyi District State Executive Service)) (within this artificially manufactured proceeding), PERSON_1 turned to the court, demanding an end to this abuse and the cancellation of the extortionate fees and appealed to the administrative court to protect her rights violated by the State Enforcement Service.

The 2026 Legal Trap: How the SES and Courts Drag Ukrainians into the Circles of Procedural Hell

Upon reviewing the lawsuit materials, the judge of the Kyiv District Administrative Court, M. Ya. Vistak, refused to consider the case on its merits.

The court cited the rules of jurisdictional division, literally dismantling the claims of PERSON_1.

The judge sent the claims to cancel the SES resolutions to the civil Dniprovskyi District Court, while keeping the claim regarding unlawful omission in the administrative court, ultimately returning the lawsuit due to «improper joinder of claims.»

However, this stance by the judge constitutes a blatant procedural error and absolute absurdity, directly contradicting the well-established case law of the Supreme Court.

The Dniprovskyi District Court (a court of general civil jurisdiction) will never accept such a lawsuit, as it falls entirely outside its competence!

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that if a resolution to collect an enforcement fee is severed into a separate enforcement proceeding (as in this case — No. 57991873), this resolution acquires the status of an independent enforcement document.

Challenging any actions, decisions, or omissions of an enforcement officer within such a «severed» proceeding falls exclusively within the competence of administrative courts, regardless of which court issued the original enforcement writ.

Had PERSON_1 approached the Dniprovskyi District Court, it would have simply dismissed the proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction.

Cynicism Under the Mask of European Norms — Where Is Ukrainian Justice Heading?

The ultimate cynicism of this situation lies in how exactly Judge M. Ya. Vistak attempted to justify her procedural «football.

» The court ruling states in black and white that depriving a person of the right to have their case heard on the merits is not «formalism,» but rather an action «aimed at streamlining procedural legal relations.» Furthermore, the judge cynically hid behind the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), citing the case Nataliya Mykhaylenko v. Ukraine, to remind the citizen—who was already battered by extortion—that «the right of access to a court is not absolute» and that the state enjoys a «margin of appreciation.»

This is a flagrant distortion of European values.

The judge «forgot» to cite another mandatory stance of the ECHR: any procedural restrictions must not impair the very essence of the right to judicial protection or deprive it of its effectiveness. When an administrative court unlawfully sends a citizen to a civil court that is legally bound to reject the case, it creates an artificial deadlock known in ECHR jurisprudence as excessive procedural formalism.

While Ukraine loudly proclaims its European integration aspirations to the world, aligns its legislation with EU norms, and reports on judicial reform, justice on the ground turns into a mockery of the citizen.

Utilizing ECHR rulings and referencing «procedural economy» to throw a citizen out of the courtroom into a jurisdictional void is the absolute pinnacle of legal nihilism.

As long as this bureaucratic «football» continues, the unlawful demands of the SES for UAH 121,000 remain active.

This stands as a vivid example of how formalism and judicial errors become a convenient shield for state extortion, nullifying any European aspirations of our nation.

Call to Action and Public Oversight

We appeal to human rights organizations and the legal community to place case No. 320/33815/26 under public monitoring.

The procedural precedent set by the Kyiv District Administrative Court threatens every citizen who has lawfully complied with a court decision.

We must not allow bureaucrats to destroy the rule of law and the European future of Ukraine!

All materials and the draft appellate complaint will be  submitted to the Sixth Appellate Administrative Court.

Justice must prevail!

Last Updated on 11.10.2026 by iskova