A complaint about a bailiff’s action is a fundamental appeal measure in the executive proceedings. Pursuant to Article 767 §1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is granted de lege latanot only with respect to a bailiff’s action, but also with regard to this executive body’s omission to take action. The term “action” should also be understood as a bailiff’s refusal to take action. A complaint is not admissible, however, in the case of a bailiff’s inaction. Inaction is understood as a bailiff’s excessive delay and negligence in the fulfilment of obligations under Article 45a of the Act on court bailiffs and enforcement procedure. It leads to excessive lengthiness of executive proceedings. A bailiff’s inaction should not be de lege ferenda subject to complaint under Article 767 §1 sentence 2 CCP. Thus, the pursuit of equating the semantic scopes of the terms “omission” and “inaction” does not deserve approval. This attitude should be upheld, despite the fact that a creditor often believes the effects of a bailiff’s omission and inaction are the same. It is also very important to treat with great caution the proposals to abandon a complaint about the bailiff’s omission. The effectiveness of enforcement is supported by the recently introduced changes limiting the scope of admissibility of a complaint in relation to active, not passive, bailiff’s conduct.