THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE PROCEEDING SYSTEM IN THE USA

Abstract

The article analyzes the theoretical foundations of the development of the system of executive proceedings in the USA. The authors found out that the execution of court decisions can be carried out by: constables – full-time employees of the court, subordinate to judges and bailiffs; The service of bailiffs of the district judicial council performs mostly administrative functions and executes certain categories of decisions, for example, decisions on non-discrimination based on gender; Collection agencies are non-governmental agencies that exercise informal pressure on debtors. In addition, enforcement of court decisions can also be carried out by the Marshals Service, the Sheriff’s Service, and private legal (collection) agencies. Enforcement proceedings in the US cannot be considered in isolation from other state systems and structures, however, the competence of marshal and sheriff services in the US is not clearly defined, which causes many disputes and often requires court intervention. Dual control of the judicial system, on the one hand, creates additional guarantees of compliance with the law and ensuring the rights of the debt collector and the debtor, and on the other hand, significantly complicates and lengthens the collection procedure. The article highlights the main features of the American model of executive proceedings: first, it has a complicated procedure for executing court decisions, which depends on who made the decision: a federal court or a state court; secondly, private legal (collection) agencies carry out most of the powers to enforce judicial acts and acts of other bodies; thirdly, determining the list of property belonging to the debtor is one of the duties of the debt collector; fourthly, there is a dual system of government bodies for the implementation of court decisions and enforcement functions (the federal marshals service of the United States – on the one hand, sheriffs and their deputies – on the other); fifth, the court is given an active role in the enforcement process; sixth, there is a possibility of applying imprisonment to debtors; seventh, the institution of enforcement is monopolized by the state; eighthly, the principle of close cooperation with other law enforcement structures, as well as with the judicial community, is the basis of the work of state executives; ninth, enforcement precedents and court injunctions are actively used; tenth, there is a clear procedure for the selection and training of employees in the Marshal Service.