Debt Enforcement After Law No. 11405: Is There a Real Risk of Losing Apartment

Public debate around debt enforcement in Ukraine traditionally oscillates between two extremes: either a complete denial of risks (“a sole residence cannot be seized”) or their exaggeration (“an apartment can be taken over a one-hryvnia fine”). Both approaches are equally detached from legal reality, which, following the adoption of Law of Ukraine No. 11405 of 7 April 2026 (amending the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”), has acquired a new dimension due to the deep automation of enforcement procedures.

This law does not introduce a fundamentally new model of enforcement; rather, it changes the speed and mechanics of its implementation by integrating the Automated Enforcement System with banking and state registries. The key shift therefore lies not in the range of enforcement measures, but in the timing of their application.

Where previously there was a time gap between the initiation of enforcement proceedings and the actual seizure of assets, the amendments introduced by Law No. 11405 allow an enforcement officer to identify a debtor’s assets through automated systems and impose seizures by way of a formal order, without the need for a separate court decision for each action. In practice, this may occur immediately after the opening of proceedings or on the same day the assets are identified.

This fundamentally alters the practice: the traditional model, under which a debtor would receive notice and have time to respond before restrictions were imposed, is significantly narrowed.

At the same time, Law No. 11405 does not confirm the key fears widely circulated in public discourse. In particular, entry into the Unified Register of Debtors is not automatic and occurs simultaneously with the issuance of a formal decision within enforcement proceedings; the freezing of bank accounts is likewise not automatic and requires a separate order by the enforcement officer; and a court decision remains the legal basis for enforcement.

The most sensitive and frequently misrepresented issue concerns enforcement against a debtor’s sole residence. Here, however, the changes are not restrictive but rather protective in nature.

Law No. 11405 increases the threshold for such enforcement from 20 to 50 minimum wages, which currently amounts to more than UAH 400,000. In effect, this strengthens the protection of debtors.

At the same time, the core legal framework remains unchanged: enforcement against residential property is only possible where the debt exceeds the установлен threshold, the debtor lacks sufficient funds or other assets, and the statutory order of enforcement is respected — first against cash, then movable property, and only thereafter against immovable property.

Accordingly, claims that an apartment can be seized over a minimal unpaid fine have no legal basis.

However, Law No. 11405 introduces a different and less obvious, yet more practical risk — the loss of time as a defensive tool.

Automation, integration of registries, and the increased speed of enforcement decisions mean that a debtor may become aware of restrictions only after they have already been imposed. Strategies based on delay or inaction, which previously could sometimes be effective, are now largely ineffective.

This is the core transformation: not an expansion of enforcement powers, but a change in the system’s tempo — from an inert to a reactive model.

In these circumstances, the question is no longer whether the law allows for the seizure of an apartment. The real question is whether the debtor is able to respond before the system begins to operate against them.