Problems of closing criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation deadlines

V.I. Morenko
{"title":"Problems of closing criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation deadlines","authors":"V.I. Morenko","doi":"10.24144/2788-6018.2024.02.117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is dedicated to addressing the current issues in the theory and practice of closing criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation stage, particularly focusing on the basis of closing due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation deadlines. \nThe problem of closing criminal proceedings by the investigating judge based on paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is currently the subject of active discussions among legal professionals. This basis is directly related to the pre-trial investigation stage and, according to the current established practice of the Supreme Court, is classified as exclusive competence of the prosecutor, limiting the Investigating Judge's ability to exercise effective judicial control during the pre-trial investigation stage. \nIt is noted that the absence of these powers in the Investigating Judge entails the risk of violating the reasonable time requirements for pre-trial investigation, as the pre-trial investigation deadline is not just a formality. Enshrining in procedural law the prosecutor's obligation to apply to the court with an accusatory document or close the criminal proceedings as soon as possible but not later than the procedural deadline after notifying the suspect of the accusation is a guarantee of the fundamental right of individuals to have their cases heard within a reasonable time frame. Unfortunately, in practical terms, this guarantee is not always implemented, and the lack of effective judicial control only contributes to the spread of prosecutorial inactivity. The article suggests that the most optimal solution to this problem is the alternative competence of both the prosecutor and the Investigating Judge regarding the authority to close criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation stage. This would help achieve a balance of interests between the parties involved in criminal proceedings and prevent abuses of power. \nTo improve the mechanism for ensuring compliance with reasonable deadlines, the author proposes expanding and specifying the powers of the Investigating Judge when closing criminal proceedings. Specifically, it is suggested to add Part 2-1 to Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: «Criminal proceedings at the pre-trial investigation stage are closed by the Investigating Judge based on the grounds provided for in paragraph 10 of this article if the suspect does not object to the closure on these grounds.»","PeriodicalId":227965,"journal":{"name":"Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":"124 49","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2024.02.117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is dedicated to addressing the current issues in the theory and practice of closing criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation stage, particularly focusing on the basis of closing due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation deadlines. The problem of closing criminal proceedings by the investigating judge based on paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is currently the subject of active discussions among legal professionals. This basis is directly related to the pre-trial investigation stage and, according to the current established practice of the Supreme Court, is classified as exclusive competence of the prosecutor, limiting the Investigating Judge's ability to exercise effective judicial control during the pre-trial investigation stage. It is noted that the absence of these powers in the Investigating Judge entails the risk of violating the reasonable time requirements for pre-trial investigation, as the pre-trial investigation deadline is not just a formality. Enshrining in procedural law the prosecutor's obligation to apply to the court with an accusatory document or close the criminal proceedings as soon as possible but not later than the procedural deadline after notifying the suspect of the accusation is a guarantee of the fundamental right of individuals to have their cases heard within a reasonable time frame. Unfortunately, in practical terms, this guarantee is not always implemented, and the lack of effective judicial control only contributes to the spread of prosecutorial inactivity. The article suggests that the most optimal solution to this problem is the alternative competence of both the prosecutor and the Investigating Judge regarding the authority to close criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation stage. This would help achieve a balance of interests between the parties involved in criminal proceedings and prevent abuses of power. To improve the mechanism for ensuring compliance with reasonable deadlines, the author proposes expanding and specifying the powers of the Investigating Judge when closing criminal proceedings. Specifically, it is suggested to add Part 2-1 to Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: «Criminal proceedings at the pre-trial investigation stage are closed by the Investigating Judge based on the grounds provided for in paragraph 10 of this article if the suspect does not object to the closure on these grounds.»
审前调查期限到期导致刑事诉讼程序终结的问题
本文致力于探讨当前在审前调查阶段终结刑事诉讼的理论与实践问题,尤其侧重于因审前调查期限届满而终结诉讼的依据问题。调查法官依据《乌克兰刑事诉讼法典》第 284 条第 1 部分第 10 款结束刑事诉讼的问题目前是法律专业人士积极讨论的主题。这一依据与审前调查阶段直接相关,根据最高法院目前的既定做法,被归类为检察官的专属权限,限制了调查法官在审前调查阶段行使有效司法控制的能力。值得注意的是,如果调查法官没有这些权力,就有可能违反审前调查的合理时间要求,因为审前调查的最后期限不仅仅是一种形式。在诉讼法中规定检察官有义务向法院提交指控文件或尽快结束刑事诉讼,但不得晚于将指控通知嫌疑人后的诉讼期限,这是对个人在合理期限内审理案件这一基本权利的保障。遗憾的是,在实际操作中,这一保障并不总能得到落实,缺乏有效的司法控制只会助长检察机关不作为现象的蔓延。文章建议,解决这一问题的最佳方案是检察官和调查法官在审前调查阶段拥有结束刑事诉讼的替代权限。这将有助于实现刑事诉讼所涉各方之间的利益平衡,防止滥用权力。为完善合理期限的保障机制,笔者建议扩大和明确预审法官在终结刑事诉讼时的权力。具体而言,建议在《乌克兰刑事诉讼法典》第 284 条中增加第 2-1 部分:"预审调查阶段的刑事诉讼由调查法官根据本条第 10 款规定的理由结案,如果嫌疑人不反对根据这些理由结案"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信