The article examines one of the ways to improve the efficiency of enforcement proceedings by means of changing the names of the profession “state” and “private executor” to more relevant ones in terms of their legal status (rights and responsibilities) of such entities. The author considers the incorrect name of these professions as one of the many factors that lead to a misunderstanding of the powers given to the executor by the participants in the enforcement proceedings and, as a consequence, their destructive procedural behaviour. For the purpose of a comprehensive study, the author considers the existing experience in the spatial and temporal dimension such as foreign and historical experience. The article gives examples of the names of professions, whose powers at different times included the functions of enforcement of decisions. The names of such professions differed semantically depending on the peculiarities of their functions and place in the relevant system: Ciwun, Virnyk, Miecznik, Yemets, Otrok.

Numerous domestic publications on the modern foreign experience of enforcement of court decisions and other official authorities with jurisdiction, entities of enforcement of decisions, are mainly called court executor. The author of the article refutes the imposed definition and gives the examples of the names of the profession in different countries: France – Huissier de Justice – judicial officer, Germany – Justizwachtmeister – judicial guard master, Italy – Ufficiale Giudiziario – official judicial representative.

 The study examines the reasons for the erroneous name of the profession of “private enforcement executor”, which appeared as opposed to “state enforcement executor”, which is also a consequence of a logical fallacy and contains the word “state” only in order to supplement the overused word “executor”.

In addition, in the article with reference to foreign experience the author considers the prospect of giving executors the function to establish legal facts, since such a function in the field of justice is quite close in essence to the functions currently assigned to executors. It is proposed that the powers of executors should go beyond the merely executive process, but remain within the scope of the functions of justice.

Taking into account the above mentioned aspects, the author came to the conclusion that the contemporary name of the profession of “state”, “private executor” is used incorrectly. Thus, it is suggested that it should be unified and changed to “justice officer”.

Bibliography

Edited books

1. Honcharenko V (zah red), Khrestomatiia z istorii derzhavy i prava zarubizhnykh krain: navchalnyi posibnyk dlia yurydychnyh vyshchykh navchflnyh zakladiv i fakultetiv, t 1 (In Yure 1998) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

2. Boieru V, ‘Strukturyzatsiia prychyn nyzkoho rivnia efektyvnosti vykonannia rishen yurysdyktsiinykh orhaniv v Ukraini’ (2020) 5 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 48–54 (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

3. Myroniuk R, ‘Napriamy reformuvannia systemy orhaniv vykonannia sudovykh rishen’ Suchasna administratyvno-pravova doktryna zakhystu prav liudyny: tezy dopovidei ta naukovyh povidomlen naukovo-praktychnoi konfererentsii (Nats yuryd un-t im Ya Mudroho 2015) 60–4.

Newspaper articles

4. ‘Status vykonavtsia maie buty yedynym, bez podilu na derzhavnoho chy pryvatnoho: interv’iu Andriia Volkova holovnomu redaktoru Yehoru Zheltukhinu’ (Iurydychna hazeta online, 03.04.2015) <https://yur-gazeta.com/interview/status-vikonavcya-maebutiedinim-bez-podilu-na-derzhavnogo-chi-privatnogo.html> (accessed: 02.03.2021) (in Ukrainian).