ENFORCEMENT OF COURT DECISIONS REGARDING THE SALE OF CONFISCATED WEAPONS IN UKRAINE: ISSUES IN LEGAL REGULATION AND PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive study of the administrative and legal regulation of the enforcement of court decisions regarding the confiscation of property in Ukraine, with a particular focus on the specific treatment of weapons as objects posing a heightened public danger. The current model of organizing enforcement proceedings, which combines the activities of state and private enforcement agents, is analyzed, and its compliance with European trends in the development of legal systems is assessed. The content of regulatory acts governing the disposal of confiscated property is examined, particularly their referential and fragmented nature. It has been established that current legislation does not provide a comprehensive and coordinated mechanism for the disposal of confiscated weapons, as evidenced by the absence of clearly defined procedures for interaction between enforcement agencies and specialized business entities, the lack of regulation regarding the transfer, the valuation and sale of such property, as well as the existence of conflicts between subordinate regulatory acts. Particular attention is paid to the consequences of law enforcement system reform, which has led to the obsolescence of certain provisions and the creation of gaps in legal regulation. This study examines the organizational aspects of enforcing court decisions regarding the confiscation of weapons, specifically the lack of adequate infrastructure for their disposal, the limited number of entities that meet licensing requirements, and the economic challenges involved in carrying out such activities. Based on an analysis of judicial practice, it has been established that in a significant number of cases, enforcement authorities are forced to initiate a change in the method of enforcing court decisions due to the impossibility of realizing confiscated property, which effectively leads to its destruction. It is argued that such practice indicates the systemic ineffectiveness of the institution of confiscation in this area, as it fails to achieve its primary objective—the transfer of property or funds to the state budget.