Extrajudicial Collection of Debts on Housing and Communal Payments by Virtue of a Notary’s Writ of Execution: Problem Statement

The institution of extrajudicial collection of debts through a notary’s writ of execution occupies a special place among the forms of protection of subjective civil rights and legitimate interests. Recently, a draft law on the application of this institution to the collection of debts of citizens and organizations for the payment of housing and communal services has been discussed. However, this innovation may serve not so much to protect the rights of creditors as to complicate the process of collecting such debts. Purpose: to identify consequences of enshrining the possibility of extrajudicial collection of debts on housing and communal payments by virtue of a notary’s writ of execution. Methods: analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, description, interpretation. Results: the article reveals negative consequences of enshrining the possibility of extrajudicial collection of debts on housing and communal payments by virtue of a notary’s writ of execution. The study shows that any extrajudicial collection is contrary to the constitutional provision that no one may be deprived of his property except by a court decision. The author also includes among the shortcomings of the institution under study the uncertainty in the question of who will pay for notary’s services, as well as the requirement addressed to the debtor to prove the validity of disagreement with the notary’s writ of execution. It is also not taken into account that in order for a notary to make a writ of execution, a written consent of both parties to the disputed material legal relationship is required, which is absent in the current contracts for the provision of housing and communal services.