According to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine main objectives of the criminal proceedings is to protect individuals, society and the state from criminal ofenses, the protection of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings, as well as the insurance of quick, comprehensive and impartial investigation and trial in order that everyone who committed a criminal ofence were prosecuted in proportion to his guilt, no one innocent were accused or convicted, and no one were subjected to ungrounded procedural compulsion and that an appropriate legal procedure applied to each party to criminal proceedings. It must be emphasized that the legislature as a separate problem highlights the need to protect rights and interests of all participants in criminal proceedings. It is obvious that the same requirement applies to pre-trial investigation. Due to the specifcity of an investigation of criminal ofenses, the legislator provides much broader powers to the prosecution than the defense. Thus, the basis of a guarantee of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests in criminal proceedings is to follow the procedural form of pre-trial investigation. Only strict observance of the law during the investigation of criminal ofenses will fully ensure that all tasks of criminal proceedings will be fulflled. But to perform such observance the law by itself must be clear and explicit. Unfortunately, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine doesn’t fulflled such requirements. This can be explained by relative novelty of the criminal procedure law and some radical innovations that were introduced in 2012. However, the specifcs of the criminal procedural activities require the improvement of criminal procedural law. And one of these institutions, which needs immediate improvement is the institution of preliminary investigation deadlines.

???? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ???? ? ?????? ?????

?????????????? ??????????? ????????? ???????????, ???????? ?? ???????? ???????????? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ? ????????????? ??????????? ???????

The article deals with the defnition of the list and functions of the operative subdivisions authorized to counteraction to the criminal activity in the international student exchange. The legal problems in the activities of subdivisions, whose competence is counteraction to the criminal ofense, are determined. The ways of solving these problems are given. It notes that the main crimes in the international student exchange is illegal migration in the form of trafcking the persons across the state border of Ukraine. These crimes are mostly combined with others, which can diferentiate into two categories: those that are necessary for the smooth committing illegal migration (obtaining undue advantage by an ofcial forgery of documents, seals, stamps, use of forged documents, etc.) and those for the commission of which the illegal migration doing (espionage, sabotage, terrorism, crime in economic activity, human trafcking, etc.). Among the operative units of law enforcement agencies counteracting of crimes is investigated operational units of the National Police, the Security Service of Ukraine and the State Border Service (under the jurisdiction specifed by the Criminal Code of Ukraine), authorized to prevent the occurrence of specifed criminal ofenses, detect and take part in their pre-trial investigation in the form of execution the prosecutor’s orders in the investigation (search) actions including undercover ones. For some cases, these functions may be execute by the operational units the other law enforcement bodies.

In the article based on the study of doctrinal sources the author has analyzed current concepts of object of crime in criminal law and has defned the object of the crime under art. 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Thus, she has stated that as for today all scientifc debates taking place on the recognition or non-recognition of the object of the crime as a social relation, the object of evasion of mobilization has been studied for this position. Moreover, regarding the factual absence of research in this feld of law enforcement by 2014 it was difcult to determine the object of the analyzed crime even for the information available in scientifc comments of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and textbooks on criminal law. The author has proved that based on the legal defnition of what constitutes «mobilization», which is the key to the analyzed crime it should talk about the broad and narrow defnition of the direct object of the crime under art. 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The object of evasion of mobilization in the broad sense of social relations in the planned transfer of the national economy, of public authorities’ activities, other government agencies, local governments, enterprises, institutions and organizations functioning in a particular period, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations, operational-rescue service of civil protection for organization and stafng of wartime. The object of evasion of mobilization in the narrow sense is established by laws and other rules the order to maintain combat and mobilization readiness of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations of Ukraine at a level that ensures adequate response to threats to national security

The article focuses on problems of legal regulation of policing with the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine «On the National Police», and ofers ways of their solution. Thus, the events of recent years in Ukraine led to the formulation of a number of social requests for reforms. The progressive international community is closely monitoring their execution and implementation. According to various objective indicators one the most promising is the reform of the Ministry of Internal Afairs of Ukraine – the transformation of the militia as punitive and repressive body into the National Police with the best possible service functions. Actually Ukrainian mentality when every policeman in fact is wrong this right can be not realized. Hardly in the US there is a question about the illegality of bringing a suspect with, for example, drugs, to the police station without any witnesses, minutes, and others. In the case of the same actions of police in Ukraine ? will immediately appeal to all possible instances that weapon is «planted», and therefore the detention is not lawful. In this regard, the most urgent question is the elaboration, implementation in legislation and law enforcement activities of the presumption police’s innocence – all police ofcer’s actions are legitimate, while the other will be decided by a court or other authorized body. Of course, this proposal requires extensive discussion, not only professional. In the future, it is extremely important to amend Art. 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine «Penetration into the residence or other person’s property»: «3. The investigator, prosecutor, other authorized person is entitled before the investigating judge issues a decree to enter the residence or other property only in urgent cases …». Of course, under other authorized person should be frst understood the police ofcer who implements his/her powers to lawful breach the inviolability of residence or other person’s property. We also should mind the departmental rule-making – the majority of above mentioned problems can be solved by elaboration and issuing of joint orders of various law-enforcement ministries and departments.

In paper on the basis of the analysis of relevant legislation and other sources stated that the development of legislation on the court and the prosecutor’s ofce and the criminal procedure law in the last 25 years was subordinated to the strategic direction established already in the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine in 1990 and the Act of Independence of Ukraine 1991, where it was emphasized that the future development of Ukraine will be associated with the formation of law state, giving priority to human rights and their guarantees, including activities related to the court and the prosecution. We study the contents of powers of prosecutor and the court (the investigating judge) concerning the guarantee of individual rights during pre-trial investigation. There is tendency consistent expansion of powers of the investigating judge, aimed at ensuring every participant in the process of illegal restriction of rights in the application of preventive measures and other measures to ensure the criminal proceedings, during the overt and covert investigative (detective) action. An exception to this tendency is temporary retreat by legislator of Ukraine in conditions of armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and of ATO of the Convention on Human Rights in 1950 and the Constitution of Ukraine on judicial guarantees of individual rights by transferring powers to the prosecutor of investigating judge granting permission for the detention of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities, of covert investigative (detective) actions and other proceedings that restrict individual rights in case of failure of the investigating judge of these powers in a timely manner. To ensure the successful implementation of tasks of quick, full and impartial investigation and pre-trial proceedings (Article 2 CPC) in criminal proceedings against the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations, ofered to resume on a regular basis, not only the military prosecutor’s ofce that has been done, but the military courts, and to amend the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and Status of Judges» and the CPC of Ukraine

Based on analysis of sources of criminal procedure, criminology, forensic psychology and other sciences, the organizational and tactical aspects of the proceedings of the measure to ensure the criminal proceedings as temporary access to objects and documents are considered in the article. It is emphasized the importance of forensic aspects of the event for proof in criminal proceedings for economic crimes, provided recommendations for its efective implementation. Based on researches of practice, typical investigating situations, which are during this event, are considered. There are three of them: 1) temporary access to documents held in a person who does not create a confict during the event; suggests that the necessary documents are not issued, may be hidden or destroyed are absent; 2) there are reasons to believe that the person in possession of documents which are not freely carry out transmission of documents; 3) there are reasons to believe that the person in possession of documents which are, try to alter or destroy documents. The third investigative situation is the most unfavorable for the investigation and one that necessitates a thorough implementation of the temporary access to documents. Typically, such a situation arises where the documents to be issuing, is not strict accountability documents and document holder is suspect, his associates, possible accomplices of committing economic crimes and others. We can conclude that settled norms of criminal procedural law implementation procedure of temporary access to the things of documents are positive development of the domestic legislator approach towards regulation of criminal procedure with international standards and provide a higher level of individual rights. However, the need of scientifc development and further improvement of the organizational and tactical aspects of its implementation

The article is devoted to the clarifcation of the distribution of the factors that afect the procedural complications, risks and conficts in civil proceedings. The availability of its dialectical connection with the institution of complications in civil proceedings is proved. It is stated that following up the matter of fact of the phenomenon of security in law. It is noted that a variety of adverse factors is the need for the distinguishing their features and types. Their classifcation makes it possible to clearly identify the threatening and dangerous conditions of civil justice as the forecast mechanism for its implementation. Based on the analysis it is follows a statement of fact that the dialectical nature of «complications in civil proceedings» is somewhat broader institution that is understood by the traditional approach described in doctrine. Just the same institution of «complications in civil proceedings» is reduced to the expression of symptoms legal phenomenon dangers. It is connected with the fact that the procedural dangers negate the civil procedural form, procedural safeguards, create adverse conditions for the realization of the civil procedural rights and responsibilities as protection of material rights and interests during the preceedings and so on. These dangers include: procedural conficts, risks and other forms of procedural complications, which form unfavorable conditions for the preparation, review and solving of civil proceedings during proceeding. They are the cause of controversial judicial practices, lack of unity, and so on. Identifying the factors of complications in procedural and methodological sense just enables «point» unfavorable, threatening and dangerous conditions on observance civil procedural forms, procedural guarantees of legality, to defne the quality of civil justice as a whole, to predict the risk factors and possible procedural consequences for the protected or guarded rights during or as a result of civil proceedings

The article is dedicated to the study of the prosecutor’s role in proving during the applying measures to ensure criminal proceedings. The issues of implementation of the law status of prosecutor in approval the motion of investigator to enforce measures to ensure criminal proceedings and the role of prosecutor in proving the necessity of enforcing these measures during the examination of the motion by investigative judge and court were studied in details. It was emphasized the diference in law status of prosecutor in applying measures to ensure criminal proceedings according to the legislation of diferent countries. The diferent scientifc approaches in defnition of the aspects of prosecutor’s role in applying measures to ensure criminal proceedings were analyzed.

This article contains a list of the means needed to conduct special investigative experiment on obtain undue advantage by an ofcial. Defned the role of the prosecutor in ensuring the legality of using these facilities by the operative units. It is established that necessary for conduct special investigative experiment on obtain undue advantage by an ofcial are: a) previously identifed (labeled) means that can be true and imitation ones; b) special chemicals; c) means for detection and identifcation of special chemicals; d) means of conspiracy d) technical means undercover fxing the progress and test results of a crime. The role of the prosecutor in ensuring the legality of the using by the operative units the means is the verifcation: the availability of legal and factual grounds for a special investigative experiment on a specifc person; procedural correctness of making false (simulation) and pre-labeled (identifed) facilities; the accuracy and completeness of fxing a procedural documents about the progress and results the special investigative experiment, as well as drafting and introduction to the documents relevant applications; determine the possibility of using technical means for undercover getting an information in the fxing of special investigative experiment or the need for additional investigation of other undercover investigative actions (audio and video monitoring the person; audio and video monitoring the place, monitor the person, thing or place using the photography, video and special vehicles for monitoring)

????????? ??????????? ???????? ??????????? ????????????? ?????????????? ?????

Based on the study of forensic sources, sources of criminal law and other scientifc literature, systematic analysis of materials forensic practice investigation riots issues the defnition and nature of forensic characteristic this type of crime were researched, defned the elements that make up its content in the article. Based on the analysis scientifc views on the concept, nature and content of forensic characteristic of crimes believe that criminalistical characteristics of crimes is based on the practice of law enforcement agencies and forensic research system summary information about forensic signifcant signs of a certain type of crime that is designed to ensure process optimization disclosure, investigation and prevention. Accordingly, under criminalistic characteristic of riots should be understood based on the practice of law enforcement agencies and forensic research system summary information about forensic signifcant signs of riots, which aims at streamlining the process of detection, investigation and prevention. Concluded that the elements that are essential forensic importance and are taken together system elements of criminalistical characteristic riots are: commit methods (in the broad sense, including tools and equipment, methods of preparation to commit riots and hide traces of their involvement in the mechanism of the crime and others); environment commission (place, time, criminological factors that lead to riots); typical «trace pattern»; identity of the perpetrator; injured persons. These elements of the system may difer depending on the scale of the riots, their efects, the number of active participants in the riots, motives and goals of the organizers. However, each of these elements is a source of information important to investigate crimes of this kind.

One of the stages of criminal proceeding decisions making is the selection and application of appropriate norms of substantive and procedural law which may be contained in the decisions of the ECtHR (hereafter – the Court). But there is a linguistic problem on the way of their usage. Despite the fact that Ukrainian legislation provides an opportunity to apply the provisions of the Court’s decisions as sources of law in proceedings by the courts, there is no widespread Court’s practice usage by national enforcement authorities. This is due to many factors, one of which is the necessity of ofcial Court’s judgments translation. The study made within the article allows to draw the following conclusions: 1) one of the key conditions of the Court’s case law application is the existence of ofcial translation of the relevant decision of the Court; 2) the mechanism of ofcial Court’s decisions translation, currently, provided only for Court’s decisions against Ukraine; 3) the issue of the Court’s case law (that concerns other countries) application can be solved by adding «Proceedings of the Court’s decisions ofcial translation» to the existing criminal procedural legislation, which is processing actions of authorized criminal proceedings participants during the pretrial investigation or in the Court proceedings, directed at the Court’s decisions ofcial translation; 4) the main stages of this procedure are: the beginning of pro-

The paper discusses main ideas in formation of the concept of prosecutor’s supervision in criminal process of Ukraine through understanding it’s subject, object, main tasks, objective and specifcs. In the article describes few scientist’s opinions of supervision’s place in prosecutor’s function system and the author made his own. Moreover the author made correlation between terms «prosecutor’s supervision» and «procedure guidance», describes other scientists opinion. Likewise, the author consider, that terms «control» and «supervision» have the same tasks and similar nature, but difer in subject of it’s application. In addition, paper analyses new constitutional states which regulate prosecutor’s activities and function in criminal process of Ukraine. Furthermore, new constitutional states create legal collision with states of the law of Ukraine «About prosecutor’s ofce». Consequently, the author insist on change of the legislation to minimize legal collision and possible problems in practice in future. Finally, the author shows that partition on supervision and guidance functions is factitious, because both of this categories have universal character and closely linked among themselves. The paper shows, that providing new statement about «procedure guidance» doesn’t creates a new function of prosecution, but only gives general name of the constitutional form and reason of its providing is implementation of prosecution changelessness principle. It is concluded that procedure guidance is a form of a prosecutorial supervision as the constitutional function.

Detention as a type of preventive measures carried out in the manner and on the grounds specifed in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The detention of persons as possible to the decision of the investigating judge of the court, and without it. Detention without a court order is possible during lawful detention and detention authorized person. However, the period for bringing a detainee or report this fact to the authorized person is not included in the total period of detention under art. 211 CPC of Ukraine. That is, the right to free movement of persons can be broken for a long time, depending on the situation. It is proposed to calculate the period of detention of a person from the moment of deprivation of the right to freedom of movement through coercive action. Also, the current CPC of Ukraine does not provide an accurate list of ofcials authorized to arrest and detention of the minutes. Granting powers and duties of the person who carried out the immediate arrest of the person on the drafting of these documents as well as ban the delegation of duty, except in exceptional cases, will discipline the police and protect from committing illegal detention.

This article analyzes the principle of independence of prosecutors in the national legislation in the context of the independence of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. It is noted that the prosecutor’s ofce is an important part of law enforcement entrusted with essential functions of protecting law and order in the state. Efective implementation of above mentioned is strongly correlated with the independence of prosecutors. The last is impossible without securing adequate guarantees for the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. In this context, the logical link the independence of prosecution in the relationship the independence of the head ofce as a whole is investigated. The article analyzes the processes that took place during the transformation of Ukraine into an independent state and the departure from Soviet views on the independence of prosecutors. Legal provisions that were implemented to get rid of the dominant political force (at the time of the Communist Party) infuence on the prosecutors are considered. The basic legislative acts adopted for 1990– 2016 are analysed. Their provisions afected the independence of the head of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. The key events that appeared the basis for such legislative changes are described. The main stages of the political struggle of the executive and legislative branches for infuence over the appointment and dismissal (resignation) the head of prosecution are identifed and described. The main ways of improving the law on the independence of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine, which are discussed in the scientifc community, are represented. Authors’ proposals to change current national laws on the matter are declared

The article describes the main trends of contemporary criminal procedural policies that are fundamental to the formation of an adequate understanding about concept of modern criminal procedure. Those directions are: humanization, that at the level of law-enforcement activity accounts for achieving optimal (reasonable) balance private and public interests in solving various problems of the criminal proceedings with the greatest possible protection of rights of the trial participators (avoiding the use of harsh measures every time there is the opportunity to solve the problem of criminal proceedings with minimal restriction of individual rights); paying in a legal state special attention to the presence of high procedural mechanisms, including detailed normative algorithmic procedures of making criminal procedural decisions and requirements to its content and form; adversarial as a modal element of a new ideology of criminal procedure (increase compliance value while making criminal procedural decisions requirements of justifcation and motivation). An essential attribute of criminal procedural decisions argument, which are adopted in the course of complex (competitive) procedures, guidance is in the text of these decisions detailed assessment of the parties’ arguments that they were expressed (orally or in writing) on the cours of the legal issues, resolved in a particular decision.

The author of the article deals with issues such application by the prosecution as a means of obtaining evidence search of a person in the course of the preliminary investigation acceptance of the ofer, promise or obtain undue advantage by an ofcial in terms of recent changes to the current criminal procedural and criminal legislation of Ukraine. Based on the results of the analysis of materials of criminal proceedings, the author concludes that in practice there are a number of problems related to the obtaining of evidence by the prosecution on the results of a search of a person in the course of the preliminary investigation acceptance of the ofer, promise or receipt of improper benefts ofcer, which can adversely afect both the efciency of the prosecution of evidence in criminal proceedings that category, and on the comprehensiveness, completeness and impartiality conduct all pretrial investigation of these crimes. The main reason is the absence in the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine articles that regulated the procedural order to obtain permission to conduct a search of the person of their sockets. In view of the above, and given criminal procedure legislation of foreign countries, the rules which detail regulate the procedural order of the prosecution searched person (art. 246 CP? Republic of Azerbaijan; art. 272 CP? Republic of Turkmenistan; art. 255 CP? Republic of Kazakhstan; art. 184 CP? of Russian Federation, art. 211 CPC Republic of Belarus; art. 185 CPC Kyrgyz Republic; art. 229 CPC Republic of Armenia), supplements the existing Code of Ukraine Article 234–1 «Searching person»

The article is dedicated to the study of legal regulation and practice of proving when disposing the issue of property attachment in the aspect of prosecution as a subject of proving. Based on CPC provisions and court practice, the participation of prosecution as a subject of proving in disposing the issue of property attachment was examined. It was proved that in determination of prosecution’s role in criminal procedural proving during the property attachment it is crucial to distinguish the local facts in proof depending on the purpose of attachment; the recovery of obtained illegitimate proft from the entity is considered as a separate purpose of attachment. The burden of proving such circumstances as concealment, damaging, deterioration, destruction, transformation and exclusion of property shall be placed upon the prosecution. Investigator or/and prosecutor takes a part in examination of the

Defned the theoretical principles of the organization of activity the operational units according to their legal status which is due to the norms of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Made suggestions to solve the problems in the existing legal norms. Emphasized that the organization of activity the operational units is a category that should act a subject of research in the theory of investigative, criminal procedure and in forensic and scientifc studies in intersectoral level that in addition to these spheres must satisfy legal science theory of Management, Administrative and Information law. Scientifc development issues of organization the activities of operational units must be carried out at diferent levels: from the organization of the investigative (search) and undercover investigative (search) bodies to the organization of the system of the operational units of all law enforcement agencies. However, such development can be based on well-established theory of the views the content of the organization the investigative (search) activity. Legal regulation of the activities of operational units should be developed on the basis of viable and proven results of scientifc research, which, in turn, must be oriented to the needs of practices solving actual issues of the combating crimes and the national security. Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should be put in the extended version (apply the concept of operational units to diferentiate them in investigative and special and diferentiated approach to the defnition of their functions and powers to allow them in agreement with the investigator to conduct its own initiative package of measures with the operational support of the criminal proceedings).

In the article highlights the problematic issue of proving by the operational units during the covert investigation (search) actions. It is noted that the disclosure and investigation of crimes largely depends on the activities of the operational units that are involved in criminal proceedings to obtain evidence through undercover covert investigation (search) actions. Operational units authorized to conduct covert investigation (search) actions under the order of the prosecutor or investigator in the manner prescribed by art. 41 CPC of Ukraine. To ensure implementation of the operational units of efective proving order prosecutor to conduct covert investigation (search) actions should be motivated, contain a clear task, which is to be resolved, the timing of its implementation, which is necessary for its implementation. In practice, most of the frst investigator sends orders to conduct covert investigation (search) actions chief operating unit, which then determines the specifc operational staf units to be run errands investigator to conduct covert investigation (search) actions. The necessity of providing investigative commission sent directly as operational or technical operating unit that is authorized to conduct covert investigation (search) actions. It is proposed to consolidate the CP? of Ukraine position that employees of operational units for good cause have the right to petition the investigating, prosecutor of the investigation (search) and covert investigative (search) action.

The article is based on an analysis of legal defnitions of investigative (search) and covert investigative (search) actions, theory of proving and doctrine of the searching activities of the investigator set discrepancy volume terms these concepts that they defne. According to that formulated proposals on amendments and additions to part 1 of Article 223: «1. The investigators (search) actions are actions aimed at receiving (collecting) evidence or verifcation of evidence already received, as well as searching individuals or material objects in the proceedings», – and parts 1, 2 of Article 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: «1. Results of covert investigative (search) action can be used to search for persons or property subject to confscation or special confscation in criminal proceedings in which they are held. 2. If the result of covert investigative (search) action detected the signs of criminal ofense that is not investigated in this criminal proceedings or the data of the wanted person or property subject to confscation or special confscation in other criminal proceedings, then the data can be used in other criminal proceedings only by the investigating judge decisions that decreed at the request of the prosecutor».

The article dedicated the exploring the actual for modern law-enforcement practice of the questions, which connected with the closing of the criminal case, when there are not many attests to proof the guilt of a person; the suferer refused from the prosecution and exposition of the interpretation of the criminal and judicial legislation, which connected with the dispensation of investigator and procurator in closing of the criminal case. The author makes the inference about juridical imperfection of the criminal and judicial legislation in the part of the normative regulation of the required grounds for closing of the criminal investigation and suggests the doctrinal interpretation of the problems in the law-enforcement practice. It is noted that the legal meaning of Article 4. 284 CP?, in our view, be interpreted systematically and consistently. In particular, the frst paragraph provides: «On the closure of criminal proceedings investigator, prosecutor adopt a resolution, which may be appealed in the manner prescribed by this Code». In other words, the legislator establishes the general rule that the investigator and the prosecutor may close the criminal proceedings in cases where the reason for this is formalizing its decision in the form of resolution. However, the responsibility of investigating it considers only the closure of the grounds provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 9 p. 1 art. 284 CCP provided that any person in the present proceedings was not notifed of the suspicion. If a person informed of the suspicion that a criminal prosecutor closes the proceedings

The standards of the prosecutor’s activity in the criminal process of the USA regulate criminal procedure prosecutor’s activity at all level in detail. The task of the prosecutor after the receiving a criminal case from the police is solving two issues. Firstly, if there are reasonable grounds to consider that the suspect has committed a crime and whether the evidence is sufcient to accuse somebody Secondly, the prosecutor must establish whether there is a public interest in the prosecuting of the suspect. The standards of the prosecutor’s activity in criminal process of the USA are analysed in the article. The types of standards, their normative regulation and peculiarities of application are severed. Its concluded that the standards of the prosecutor’s activity in criminal process of the USA constitutes unifed system of regulatory norms, using which the accusatory party fulfll its duties efective and rationally, and the defendant party can control the legality of the prosecutor activity and reasonably appeal against the actions and decisions of the prosecutor if the latter did not meet the standards. The introduction of standards of the prosecutor’s activity in criminal process of Ukraine is an urgent need in present conditions, which is caused by expectations of civil society concerning efective functioning of a new independent prosecutor’s ofce. The existence of standards as instruments of control and infuence on the prosecutor from the defense and the victim will lead to the increase of prosecutor’s work level, as well as to the increase of public confdence in the prosecutor’s ofce, which is extremely actual today.

Determined the legal problems associated with the use of the covert technical means by the prosecution during the criminal proceedings. Proposed the ways of solving these problems. Emphasized that article 273 the Criminal Code of Ukraine should complement the norm, according to which during the undercover investigative (search) activity the investigator, prosecutor and authorized operative units have the right to use technical means of penetration into publicly inaccessible places; technical means of audio and video control; technical means of interception the trafc of telecommunications networks and electronic information systems; means of photography, video and sound recordings; technical means of installation the location of the specifc material objects; technical communications equipment, optical instruments, vehicles. However, it should be noted that the permission for use of the technical means of penetration in publicly inaccessible places, the technical means of audio and video controls is the judge’s decision to conduct the undercover investigative (search) activity stipulated under Art. 267 and 260 of the Criminal Code. Permission for the use of means of interception of telecommunications transport networks is the judge’s decision to conduct the undercover investigative (search) activity under Art. 263 of the Criminal Code. Permission for the use of means of interception the trafc of electronic information systems, access to which is restricted by the owner, the owner or holder, or associated with overcoming the logical protection system, is the judge’s decision to conduct the undercover investigative (search) activity under Part. 1 st.264 of the Criminal Code. Moreover, Art. 273 should complement the remark that during the undercover investigative (search) activity in publicly accessible places are allowed freely use the audio, video, photography technical means, video and sound recordings; the technical means of installation the location of the specifc material objects; optical devices, technical means of communication, vehicles.

In the article on the basis of analyse of research results and current procedural legislation, the conception of criminal jurisdiction proceedings is analysed, its types and problematic issues of identifcation of the investigative jurisdiction by the prosecutor within pre-trial investigation are determined. According to the articles 216, 218 of Criminal Code of Ukraine, it is possible to identify the following types of jurisdiction: 1) objective (generic) – is identifed by qualifcation of crime and is intended to diferentiate the investigative jurisdiction between diferent authorities of pre-trial investigation (part 1, paragraph 1 part 2, paragraph 1 part 3 of article 216); 2) territorial – is identifed by the place of crime commitment (part 1, 3 article 218 of Criminal code of Ukraine); 3) personal – is identifed by the only feature of crime subject, such as current post (part 4, 5 article 216 of Criminal code of Ukraine); 4) by the connection of proceedings (paragraph 2 part 2, paragraph 2 part 3, part 6, part 8 of article 216 of Criminal Code of Ukraine); 5) Alternative – is identifed by that authority which has started the criminal proceedings (part 8 of article 216). Unacceptability of alternative jurisdiction is proved, sense of which is that who has revealed the criminal misdeed or who started it should fulfl the pre-trial investigation. Alternative jurisdiction is to be only in cases when legislator clarifes himself with exceptional list of cases concerning that it is possible to apply such type of jurisdiction. It is proved that powers of identifcation of criminal proceedings jurisdiction by the prosecutor are caused by constitutional function of the prosecutor concerning fulflment by him arrangements and conduct of procedural pre-trial investigation regardless of departmental belongings of pre-trial investigation authorities. Problematic issues of violation of rules of jurisdiction that can lead to acceptation prove as inadmissible issues within trial proceedings are analysed.

???????? ???????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????

C?????? ??????? ???????????, ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????? ??????????????? ? ??????? (??????????-?????????? ??????)

The paper examines the role of the prosecutor during the covert investigation (search) actions. The author determines the features ensuring the rights of persons during procedural measures that restrict constitutional rights. Ofered a supplement to p. 1, Art. 2691 of Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine as follows: «The prosecutor makes a request or approves the request of the investigator (search) on the monitoring of bank accounts». Proved that if a prediction right of control over the commission of a crime by a decision of the investigator agreed with the head of pretrial investigation, should be provided in the current legislation of Ukraine duty of prosecutor to check for legitimate and reasonable grounds of this covert investigation (search) actions and in certain cases termination of their conduct. It is proposed to consolidate in the CPC of Ukraine the right of investigator (search) who is the initiator of the CISA to become acquainted with the results, including during their implementation, and provide the right of investigator (search) to draw up a protocol on holding CISA until their termination, if the results, in his opinion, may be the basis of other legal proceedings measures (for example, in the course of the CISA established the tool storage location (subject) of the crime and there is a need to search or revealed that the suspect intends to fee from the investigation). It’s necessity to supplement Art. 257, ch. 3 as follows: «If the investigating judge issued a ruling on the use of covert investigative results (search) actions in other criminal proceedings, the prosecutor submits information to the Unifed Register of pre-trial investigations. The decision to manufacture a duplicate of the protocol and results of covert investigative (search) actions taken by a prosecutor only to be used in other criminal proceedings. In this case, duplicate reports of CISA is a source of evidence»