Enforcement proceedings are closed, but the arrest in the DRRP remains: how to sell real estate

If the enforcement proceedings are closed, but the arrest record remains in the State Register of Property Rights (DRRP), it is impossible to sell the real estate. To remove the encumbrance, it is necessary to submit an application to the active enforcement officer regarding electronic interaction with the register, and in case of destruction of the case materials — to file a lawsuit in court to protect property rights.

Problem entry point: why the notary sees the arrest

The property owner often learns about the problem only in the notary’s office, when the sale and purchase transaction falls through due to the presence of an encumbrance record in the DRRP, despite the “Closed” status in the Automated System of Enforcement Proceedings (ASVP).

The main myth is that the presence of the original paper resolution on lifting the arrest with a wet seal obliges the notary or the TsNAP (Administrative Services Center) registrar to lift the arrest and execute the transaction. In reality, the notary relies exclusively on the electronic data of the DRRP, and the registrar requires direct electronic interaction from the enforcement officer.

Paying the debt using old bank details also does not solve the problem. The funds get stuck in the unallocated accounts of the State Treasury, and the arrest remains active because the enforcement officer does not see the receipts for a closed case.

Legal nature of the mechanism and system conflict

Passing the first barrier in the form of closing the case in the ASVP does not guarantee the automatic absence of a record in the DRRP due to the desynchronization of databases and the lack of an API in older cases.

Several independent systems are involved in the process: ASVP, DRRP, the notary system, and bank financial monitoring. The ideal mechanics assume that after issuing a resolution to terminate the proceedings, the system automatically generates an API request to the DRRP, and the record is cleared within 1–2 hours. However, in cases closed before 2020, the API worked with errors or was absent, causing paper letters to registrars to be lost.

Even if the client provides an extract from the ASVP or a bank certificate confirming debt repayment, the notary is obliged to refuse the transaction. The buyer’s bank will also block the issuance of a mortgage or the transfer of funds until the DRRP is completely cleared.

Action algorithm (Decision Tree)

The choice of the legal regime for lifting the arrest depends on the status of the enforcement officer and the preservation of the enforcement proceedings materials.

Below is a table with the main scenarios of the situation’s development and action algorithms.

Practical reality and bottlenecks

In practice, the process of lifting an arrest faces a number of procedural barriers that delay the clearing of the register for months.

The main trigger for failure is the human factor: the enforcement officer closed the case but forgot to form the registration block in the ASVP. This can be diagnosed through an extract from the ASVP. This results in the need for a repeated appeal to the enforcement officer.

Real timeframes for clearing the register

The formal deadlines established by law rarely coincide with the actual time spent on restoring the violated right.

The table shows realistic timeframes for solving the problem depending on the chosen path.

Classification of procedural risks

Attempts to speed up the process or the use of incorrect legal instruments lead to fatal errors and loss of time.

The risk matrix demonstrates the main threats when lifting an arrest independently.

Owner errors and secondary system risks

A lack of understanding of the mechanics of register interaction leads to owners taking actions that aggravate the situation.

The most common mistake is attempting to force the TsNAP or a notary to lift the arrest based on a paper letter from the enforcement officer. Registrars do not have the right to perform such actions without an electronic request. A secondary risk is the expiration of the power of attorney: litigation can last up to six months, and a power of attorney issued for a short period loses its validity before a decision is made.

When a legal audit is needed

The intervention of a specialized lawyer is necessary if the situation goes beyond a standard technical failure.

An audit is required if the enforcement officer refuses to issue a written response, the case materials are destroyed, or if cascading arrests from different DVS departments are found in the DRRP. In such cases, it is necessary to form an evidence base for filing a lawsuit to protect property rights.

Summary

If the enforcement proceedings are closed, but the arrest in the DRRP remains, it is necessary to check the status of the enforcement officer. If they are active and the case is intact, an application for electronic removal is submitted (3–10 days). If the case is destroyed (more than 3 years have passed), a lawsuit to protect property rights is filed in a civil court (2–6 months). Paper resolutions do not work for a notary.

Check your situation

• The status of the proceedings in the ASVP is “Closed”, but the notary sees an arrest in the DRRP.
• The enforcement officer refuses to lift the arrest due to the destruction of the case materials in the archive.
• The private enforcement officer who imposed the arrest has been stripped of their license or mobilized.
• You have the original resolution on lifting the arrest, but the TsNAP refuses registration.

A match with any of these points indicates a desynchronization between the registers or a procedural deadlock. The situation requires either initiating electronic interaction through the active enforcement officer or moving to the judicial plane to protect property rights.

Normative sources and court practice

• Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” (No. 1404-VIII)
  Art. 40 Part 1
  Official source
• Law of Ukraine “On State Registration of Property Rights to Real Estate and Their Encumbrances” (No. 1952-IV)
  Art. 31-1
  Official source
• Law of Ukraine “On Notaries” (No. 3425-XII)
  Art. 55
  Official source
• Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “Procedure for State Registration of Property Rights to Real Estate and Their Encumbrances” (No. 1127)
  para. 61
  Official source
• Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court
  case No. 137/1666/16-ts
  Official source
• Resolution of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court
  case No. 2-3554/10
  Official source
• Resolution of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court
  case No. 645/6694/15-ts
  Official source