UDC 343.13                                                                                                                                                                  PDF

ORCID: 0000-0002-0717-0825

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2020-1(30)-8

Mykola MISECHKO,

Judge of Obolon`sky District Court of Kyiv,

Ph.D. candidate, University of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine  

In the matter of some issues on the notice of accusation according to criminal procedural law of Ukraine

The author examines the problematic issues of the essence of the notification of suspicion, its concept, meaning, which scientists interpret as: procedural activity, the meaning of which is the preparation by the investigator or prosecutor of a written notice of the suspicion and its delivery to the person in accordance with Art. art. 276-279 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine; procedural decision; procedural action; institute of criminal procedural law; pre-trial stage and the form of notification; pre-trial investigation stage; the first stage of formation of the state prosecution; the primary form of indictment against a specific person; commencement of the prosecution function. The ambiguous legislative regulation of the institution of notification of suspicion is considered, in particular, the absence of specific normative consolidation of the basic concepts of the institution of notification of suspicion and contradiction of the articles of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine (Article 177 and Article 276), and chapter 22 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, entitled “Notification of suspicion” regarding the connection of the procedural activity from the notification of suspicion with the array of the procedural actions of the investigator and / or prosecutor, the meaning of which is to establish legal and factual grounds for notification of suspicion (Art. 276), the drafting of a written procedural document (notice of suspicion) (art. 277) and its delivery to a person (art. 278).

Attention is drawn to certain aspects when giving notice of suspicion and explaining rights to a person, as well as to typical procedural errors when notifying a person of suspicion, namely, acquisition of the procedural status of a suspect from the moment of actual delivery of mail with notification of suspicion; the formal explanation to suspects of the scope of their rights, the possibility of abuse by investigators and prosecutors of the right to apply a special procedure for notifying a person of suspicion.

Key words:notice of accusation (suspicion notification), legal and factual grounds for suspicion notification, procedure for suspicion notification, notice of accusation submission, explaining rights to the suspect, notification delivery, typical procedural errors.

References

Velykyy tlumachnyy slovnyk suchasnoyi ukrainskoyi movy. Kyiv, Irpin, 2009. 1736 p. [ukr.]

Khytra A. Y. Teoriya ta praktyka pravoohoronnoyi diyalnosti. International scientific-practical conference (November 11, 2016) / emphasis. Y. S. Nazar. Lviv: Lviv Department of Internal Affairs , 2016. P. 348–351. [ukr.]

Alenin Y. P., Hlovnyuk I. V. Povidomlennya pro pidozru : zagalna kharakterystyka ta problemy ydoskonalennya. VisnykPivdennogoregionalnogotsentruNatsionalnoyiakademiyipravovyhnaukUkrainy. 2014. № 1. P. 161–169.    [ukr.]

Hrynyuk V. O. Povidomlennya pro pidozru yak forma zdiysnennya pervynnogo obvynuvachennya u kryminalnomu provadzhenni. Forumprava. 2017. № 1. P. 20.-25. [ukr.]

Criminal procedural code of Ukraine: Law of 13 April 2012 (as amended). URL: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17[ukr.]

Hrynyuk V. O. Okremi pytannya povidomlennya pro pidozru yak pochatok realizatsiyi funktsiy obvynuvachennya. PravoUkrainy. 2013. № 11. P. 120–126. [ukr.]

Lukashevych V. Z. Obosnovannost obvinenia i garantii prav obviniaemogo v stadii predvaritelnogo rassledovania. Uchen.zap. LGU. 1956. № 202. Vol. 8. P. 190–200.   [ukr.]

Bozhev V. P. Ugolovno-processualnie pravootnoshenia. Moscov, 1975. 175 p.

Tyshchenko O., Hovorun D. Okremi pytannya protsesualnogo poryadku povidomlennya pro pidozru v konteksti realizatsii zasady publichnosti. Pidpryemstvo, gospodarstvoipravo. 2016. № 9. P. 153–157. [ukr.]

Tatarov O. Problemy povidomlennya pro pidozru ta shlyahy yikh vyrishennya. NaukovyychasopysNatsionalnoyiakademiyiprokuraturyUkrainy. 2014.  № 4. P. 179–186. [ukr.]

Pro sudovu praktyku zabezpechennya prava na zakhyst u kryminalnomu provadzhenni: Informatsiynyy lyst VSSU 25.09.2015 № 9. URL: http://sc.gov.ua/ua/uzagalnennja_sudovoji_ praktiki.html. [ukr.]

Bludylina M. Y., Boyarov V. I., Varfolomeeva T. V., Loboyko L. M. ta in. Criminal procedural code of Ukraine: nauk.-prakt. komentar. Кyiv, 2012.  [ukr.]

Hlynska N., Loboyko L., Shylo O. Povidomlennya pro pidozru:  pravomirnist zastosuvannya poryadku, peredbachenogo KPK Ukrainy dlya vruchennya povidomlen. YurydychnyyvisnykUkrainu. 2017. № 45 (1166). URL: https://ivpz.kh.ua/uk/[ukr.]