ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ ПРОКУРОРОМ ТИМЧАСОВОГО ДОСТУПУ ДО РЕЧЕЙ І ДОКУМЕНТІВ ПІД ЧАС РЕАЛІЗАЦІЇ ФУНКЦІЇ ОБВИНУВАЧЕННЯ

According to Art. 1311 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Art. 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the prosecutor in criminal proceedings supervises compliance with the laws during the pre-trial investigation in the form of procedural guidance. In essence, this means that it is the prosecutor who is responsible for organizing the pre-trial investigation process, determining its directions, coordinating the conduct of procedural actions, and ensuring compliance with the requirements of the laws of Ukraine during criminal proceedings. When carrying out procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor has constant access to procedural information, is aware of all key decisions made by the investigator, is obliged to promptly eliminate violations of the law, and on the basis of the evidence collected under his leadership, subsequently supports the public prosecution in court. The prosecutor is the official who takes part throughout the entire criminal proceedings. Of course, at each separate stage, the functions and powers are different and reflect the peculiarities of a particular stage of criminal proceedings. The article examines the features of the prosecutor’s participation in the process of providing evidence during the pre-trial investigation. This stage is regulated by criminal procedural law and is aimed at the rapid, complete and impartial establishment of the circumstances of the criminal offense committed, so that everyone who committed it was held accountable to the extent of their guilt, no innocent person was accused, no person was subjected to unjustified procedural coercion and that due legal procedure was applied to each participant in the criminal proceedings. Evidence in criminal proceedings has always been one of the most discussed problems among scientists and practitioners. This situation is primarily explained by the importance of evidence and the process of providing evidence. In general, it can be noted that the main purpose of criminal proceedings is the establishment of circumstances stipulated in Art. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this article that determines the actual direction of criminal procedural activity, because in order to achieve the goal of the investigation and a fair trial, it is necessary to establish the event of a criminal offense, the person who committed it, the causal relationship between the act and this person. In fact, the process of proving determines the essence of the entire criminal proceedings, because it is aimed at achieving the main objectives of the criminal process. Its authorized participants play a key role in this activity. This especially applies to the investigator (investigator) and the prosecutor, who are charged with the duty of proof by law. Accordingly, it is these participants in the criminal process, by collecting, verifying and evaluating evidence, form the vector of criminal proceedings, which will determine the course of both the pre-trial investigation and the trial. And although the subject authorized to conduct the pre-trial investigation is the investigator, it is the prosecutor who has a more significant influence on the process of proving in criminal proceedings. He, as the procedural leader, must control the course of the pre-trial investigation, and at the time of drawing up suspicion and approving the indictment, objectively assess all the collected evidence, primarily from the point of view of its relevance, admissibility, reliability and sufficiency. Therefore, this article is devoted to the study of the prosecutor’s activities as a subject of evidence in criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation. The work analyzes the current legislation of Ukraine, scientific research on the evidentiary activities of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. The materials of the article are of both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific research of the features of domestic criminal procedural evidence, as well as for proper understanding and implementation of its law-enforcement criminal procedural activity.

The article is devoted to the study of the place and photographs of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. It is noted that with the advent of information and computer technology (smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc.), which criminals began to use for their illegal purposes, a new type of evidence began to appear – electronic evidence. Among domestic scientists there is no unity of opinion on the definition of the concept, place and electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. This is due not only to the lack of regulatory consolidation of electronic evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine), but also to the specification of their organization, research, seizure, storage and evaluation. It is emphasized that the CPC of Ukraine does not contain a definition of the concept of “electronic evidence”, but it is given in the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAP of Ukraine), the Commercial Procedure Code (CPC of Ukraine) and the Civil Procedure Codes of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine) The article uses the concept of “electronic evidence after”, in international regulatory acts, in particular in acts of the European Union, the term electronic evidence (electronic evidence) is mainly used. A comparative analysis of approaches to consolidation and regulation of electronic evidence in the legislation of foreign countries, in particular Latvia, Hungary, Singapore, Great Britain and the USA, is presented. Both national and foreign judicial practice are given in detail. Proposals have been made regarding the possible consolidation of electronic evidence in the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine in two ways, namely: consolidation of the concept of electronic evidence in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, establishing its definition and indicating what exactly can be attributed to electronic evidence and creating a separate law that will determine the procedure for research, collection, storage and analysis of electronic evidence. Establishment of clear and understandable procedures for the admissibility and admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings.

The article substantiates that the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, having implemented the institution of covert investigative (search) actions and preserving the possibility of conducting operative and investigative measures in the interests of criminal justice, has significantly expanded the means of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings. On the basis of the analysis of the materials of the practice of domestic law enforcement agencies and courts, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the norms of the current criminal procedural legislation, the legislation on operative-investigative activity and regulatory-legal departments, typical violations of the legislation in the conduct of undercover investigative (investigative) actions and their use are distinguished results in evidence by pre-trial investigation bodies and courts, which lead to the violation of human rights: 1) absence or groundlessness of factual and legal grounds for conducting secret investigative (search) actions; 2) violation of the deadlines for conducting secret investigative (research) actions; 3) incompleteness and violation of legislation when drawing up protocols of secret investigative (search) actions; 4) drawing up protocols of secret investigative (search) actions by unauthorized entities; 5) conducting or authorizing the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions by unauthorized entities; 6) the absence in the materials of the criminal proceedings of the decisions of the investigating judge on granting permission to conduct secret investigative (search) actions; 7) violation of the rules of admissibility and propriety when using the results of secret investigative (search) actions as evidence in a criminal trial; 8) violation of legality in the tactics and organization of secret investigative (search) proceedings. It is proved that the guarantees of legality and observance of human rights in the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions and investigative measures and the use of their results in evidence in criminal proceedings are: a mixed form of the domestic criminal process with the expansion of adversarial principles in the pre-trial investigation; procedural (legal) form of covert investigative (detective) actions and operative-detective measures; effective departmental control, prosecutorial supervision, judicial control; independence of the court; high professionalism of defenders, prosecutors, judges and pre-trial investigation bodies; low level of corruption of justice bodies and developed public control over their activities. Under the special regime in the conditions of martial law, state of emergency or in the area of anti-terrorist operation the guarantees of personal rights during the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions and operative-search measures are preserved.

The features of prosecutorial supervision over the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions during the pre-trial investigation of drug-related crimes have been explored as an important component in ensuring the legality and effectiveness of counteracting criminal offenses in the field of illegal drug trafficking. Through a systematic analysis of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine and the practice of applying its provisions during procedural leadership in the pre-trial investigation of drug-related crimes and the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions, the most important elements of the prosecutor's activity have been identified. Both the procedural and organizational aspects (foundations) of their work have been considered. The subject and means of prosecutorial supervision over the pre-trial investigation of drug-related crimes have been defined. It has been established that the latent nature of drug-related crimes leads to the widespread use of covert investigative (search) actions to detect and document these criminal offenses. In criminal proceedings of the investigated category, the full range of covert investigative (search) actions provided for by the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine has been used. Their optimal list, timing, and location in each investigative situation must be determined separately, taking into account the means of concealment used and potentially available to individuals involved in the commission of drug-related crimes. A key role in determining the list and sequence of covert investigative (search) actions during the pre-trial investigation of drug-related crimes is actually played by the prosecutor, due to their procedural powers. The prosecutor bears the main responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness and legality of covert investigative (search) actions, as well as the admissibility of using their materials as evidence in criminal proceedings. However, the determination of the system of covert investigative (search) actions in a specific criminal case should rely on constructive interaction between the prosecutor, the investigator, and the employees of operational units involved in the operational support of the criminal proceedings. The criteria that must be monitored by the prosecutor to ensure the legality of conducting a specific covert investigative (search) action during the pre-trial investigation of drug-related crimes have been identified.

The article examines certain features of the assessment of evidence in criminal proceedings in various legal systems and in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Different approaches to understanding the essence of the concept of "standard of criminal procedural evidence" are analyzed and the author's definition of it is proposed. It is illustrated that the rules of evaluation of evidence, which take place in Anglo-Saxon and continental jurisdictions, differ significantly. In the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal family, objective criteria for the evaluation of evidence have been established - standards of evidence based on the idea of ​​assessing the probability of certain variants of the actual picture of the proceedings and have a guiding nature. Continental European countries, on the other hand, apply a subjective criterion for evaluating evidence, using the category of "internal conviction", which is based on the personal conviction of the subject of evidence in the truth of a certain fact. It was concluded that the effectiveness of evidentiary activity can be increased by introducing objective elements into the assessment rules, which leads to the development and normalization of standards of criminal procedural evidence in the domestic criminal process. This will contribute to the development of the same approach to making procedural decisions and the implementation of procedural actions by all subjects of evidence in various criminal proceedings and stages, who will understand the level of requirements for their adoption or conduct. When analyzing the practice of the European Court, it was determined that the rules for applying the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" by the European Court and national courts (in particular, the Anglo-Saxon legal system) differ. In this regard, the opinion was expressed that domestic criminal proceedings should be guided by the practice of implementing this standard in the legal systems of common law countries.

The article examines and analyzes the issue of notification of suspicion in criminal proceedings in Ukraine. A comparison of the legislation of Ukraine and other states regarding the notification of suspicion was made. The problems of making a report of suspicion, the negative consequences that such a phenomenon entails, are outlined. On the basis of the analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter - CPC) of Ukraine and other countries, proposals are proposed to improve the legislation, eliminate gaps related to the notification of suspicion in criminal proceedings and proving the circumstances of a criminal offense. It is noted that despite the fact that the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine has been adopted for almost ten years, problematic issues still arise when deciding the procedure for applying the norms of this Code, during proving, collecting evidence for notifying a person of suspicion. In the CPC of Ukraine, two chapters - 22 and 37 - are devoted to the procedure of reporting a suspicion, which emphasizes the importance of this institution. It is noted that the legislator purposefully draws attention to this institution of criminal procedural law, and at the same time does not completely regulate and specify norms of such a nature that would exclude the possibility of controversial issues of notifying a person of suspicion. It is also stated that the violation of the law, which can be allowed by the prosecuting party when notifying a person of suspicion, usually leads to significant restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens. It was noted that the evidence, which is obtained legally and which makes it possible to make an assumption about the commission of a criminal offense by a certain person, should be recognized as evidence sufficient for the notification of suspicion. A legally adopted decision to notify a person of suspicion contributes to the achievement of the objectives of criminal proceedings, namely: improving the state of legality, protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, as well as ensuring a quick, complete and impartial investigation.

The article examines current issues regarding the applicability of the term «proof» to the process of proving the existence of risks when applying preventive measures in criminal proceedings, as well as the differentiation of the stages of proving the existence of such risks when imposing (or extending) preventive measures in criminal proceedings. Particular attention is focused on the review of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the possible application of the term “proof,” and thus the corresponding chapter of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the process of establishing the existence of risks when choosing a preventive measure in criminal proceedings. This follows from the existing inconsistency, namely that proof, according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, is aimed at establishing facts that took place in the past or exist in the present. At the same time, the establishment of risks is of a clearly prognostic nature, i.e. it is directed at proving the probability of the occurrence of a certain event in the future. It is established that, based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the process of proving the existence of risks in the application of preventive measures should be divided into two stages. Specifically, proving certain facts and circumstances that subsequently serve as the basis for forecasting the probability of the suspect (accused) committing certain actions in the future (i.e., the occurrence of a particular risk). At the same time, the use of the term «proof,» and therefore the application of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, is possible only at the first stage of proving the existence of risks when applying a preventive measure in criminal proceedings. Meanwhile, the second stage is prognostic in nature, aimed at an intellectual assessment of the probability of the occurrence of a particular risk from the list provided in Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Furthermore, the author concludes that there is an absence of clearly established legal standards governing the second stage of proving the existence of risks when applying preventive measures in criminal proceedings.

The article is devoted to clarifying the issue of subjects of procedural actions in criminal proceedings, the level of legislative regulation of their implementation, and the definition of the concept of “procedural actions” in the criminal procedure of Ukraine. The emphasis is on the fact that the criminal procedural law, using the concept of “procedural actions”, mainly (with some exceptions) connects them with the activities of the investigator, inquirer, prosecutor (in the cases established by the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine – also an officer of the criminal intelligence unit), investigating judge, the court in criminal proceedings. At the same time, it is emphasized that in the doctrine of criminal procedure there are both supporters of the statement that procedural actions can be performed only by the subjects listed above, and supporters of the statement that procedural actions in criminal proceedings are performed by various participants in criminal proceedings. Based on the analysis of the provisions of criminal procedural legislation and doctrinal sources, the author divides procedural actions in the criminal procedure of Ukraine into the following groups: 1) procedural actions, the performance of which is attributed only to the powers of officials of government authorities specified by the criminal procedural law; 2) procedural actions that can be performed by various participants of criminal proceedings (not only by officials of government authorities authorized in the criminal procedure); 3) procedural actions that can be performed only by those participants who are not authorized officials of government authorities in the criminal procedure. The author emphasizes that certain provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, in which the legislator uses the general concept of “procedural action”, “meaning” only a procedural action, which certain officials of government authorities are authorized to perform in criminal proceedings, need clarification. The author agrees with the statements of researchers that the level of legislative regulation of procedural actions in criminal proceedings is not the same. He clarifies that the implementation of procedural actions, depending on their essence, is either regulated in sufficient detail by criminal procedural legislation, or is partially regulated by criminal procedural legislation, with respect to some procedural actions or only the purpose of their implementation, the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine contains only a mention, or the possibility of conducting procedural actions for certain participants is allowed due to the absence of relevant prohibitions in criminal procedural legislation. As a result, the author defines procedural actions in the criminal procedure of Ukraine as actions provided for and / or not prohibited by criminal procedural legislation, which constitute the essence of the direct implementation by participants in criminal proceedings of their procedural rights, obligations, and powers to achieve the objectives of criminal proceedings.

The article is devoted to research the actual procedural grounds for appellate review of court decisions in criminal proceedings of Ukraine. As a result of the study of these criteria for appellate review of court decisions, the authors concluded that the domestic legislator rightly singles out such grounds, as they cover violations related to evidence in criminal proceedings. The legal nature of the incompleteness of the trial and the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings are given. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the incompleteness of the trial covers violations related to the shortcomings of criminal procedure in the collection and verification of evidence. Instead, the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings concerns judicial errors in the assessment of evidence and improper motivation of court decisions. The manifestations of these factual procedural grounds for appellate review of court decisions are analyzed. The procedural consequences of establishing signs of incompleteness of the trial and inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings are singled out. Analyzing the relevant norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Code of other states, as well as the views of researchers, the authors present their vision of the issues included in the subject of research. The necessity of improving the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, which regulates the incompleteness of the trial and the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings, is substantiated.

The author of the scientific article provides a scientific and practical view of forensic procedural modeling as a legal method during criminal proceedings on crimes. In this way, he makes his own contribution to the development of the science of forensics and lays new foundations in the theory and practice of criminal proceedings. All this affects the general scientific and legal, reformist policy of the state of Ukraine. At the same time, the author emphasizes that for the effective implementation of the method of forensic procedural modeling, procedural and legal cooperation of pre-trial investigation bodies and expert institutions of Ukraine is necessary in order to fully fulfill all the tasks of criminal proceedings, which are defined by the legislator in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. During the scientific research, the author analyzed and established that the methods of forensic investigation in practice of each individual case are selected individually by the person conducting the pre-trial investigation and the expert who is involved as a specialist or during the forensic examination. At the same time, the complex application of general scientific and special scientific methods can provide the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive, objective and complete study of issues that are subject to proof, and will eliminate procedural contradictions in the proceedings. For the discussion of theorists and practitioners, the author of the article presents his own position on the structure of the forensic modeling method, which is aimed at collecting and studying evidence in criminal proceedings. The significance of this structure in the system of criminology and in the criminal process of Ukraine is revealed and analyzed. As a result of the conducted scientific research, the author summarized the results of achieving the tasks that he set in the purpose of the article, provided his own (author's) wishes in terms of implementing legal norms that regulate forensic modeling during the performance of official functions by an investigator (detective) and a forensic expert who fulfill their functional duties in the direction of searching for and studying evidence of a criminal offense. The attention of scientists and practitioners of criminal process and forensics is emphasized to continue their unwavering cooperation in the study of new opportunities of modern forensics for the effective implementation of criminal proceedings and establishing the truth in the case.

The article highlights the issue of segregation of criminal proceedings in respect of one or more accomplices to differentiate the criminal procedural form of criminal proceedings in respect of accomplices in organized forms of complicity. In the case of differentiation of the criminal procedural form for a participant in an organized form of complicity by separating criminal proceedings, courts mostly do not have problems in establishing the nature and degree of participation of the member of the organized group in respect of whom the trial is being conducted in the separated criminal proceedings. At the same time, the verdicts do not have any problems with establishing the signs of an organized form of complicity (organized group, criminal organization), of which the perpetrator committed the relevant criminal offense as a member. When considering the materials of the segregated criminal proceedings against one or more accomplices of organized forms of complicity, courts should not, in their verdict, be excluded from deciding the fate of evidence in another criminal proceeding (i.e., the original criminal proceeding from which the materials of the proceedings against the accomplice were segregated), as this may adversely affect their properties. It is recommended that courts in this case indicate in the verdict that the fate of material evidence in the separated criminal proceedings against an accomplice in an organized form of complicity will be decided after consideration of the original criminal proceedings from which the materials were separated during the pre-trial investigation. When distributing procedural costs among participants in organized forms of complicity, courts mostly use various criteria for differentiating the criminal procedural form of such a decision, such as the criteria of personalization, specification, proportionality, and consideration of the type of accomplice. However, there are cases when only the proportionality criterion is used for this purpose. At the same time, the recovery of procedural costs from participants in unorganized forms of complicity (for example, the recovery of procedural costs for conducting an examination of each member of a group of persons by prior conspiracy) is carried out using only one criterion – proportionality. When passing a verdict on an accomplice whose criminal proceedings have been separated into separate proceedings, the court may impose on him/her the obligation to compensate for the damage caused jointly with the previously convicted person who was an accomplice in the jointly committed criminal offense. Key words: differentiation, criminal liability, criminal proceedings, complicity, accomplice, organized form of complicity, criminal procedural form, sentence, court, allocation of criminal proceedings, procedural costs, determining the fate of material evidence, compensation for damage caused by a criminal offense.

The article identifies the conditions which led to the legal regulation of the special regime of criminal proceedings. The author states that introducing such mechanisms to procedural legislation is necessary, particularly in martial law conditions. The author concludes that there is a lack of adequate depth of scientific research into the special regime of criminal proceedings under martial law. The author identifies the absence of a general theoretical definition of a “special regime” of this kind. The author outlines the range of conditions under which the elements of the special regime may be used in criminal proceedings under martial law. The author emphasizes that the starting point in this case is martial law, which is introduced under certain conditions and grounds. The author determines that the elements of the special regime may be applied if martial law is introduced, and the conditions specified in Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine only are met. The author states that the legislator simultaneously uses the concepts of “special regime of pre-trial investigation and court proceedings under martial law” and “special regime of criminal proceedings under martial law” in Section IX-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The author presents the scientific view of the legal nature of the “special regime” of criminal proceedings developed in the modern legal literature. It is determined that not all provisions of Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine directly regulate the special regime of pre-trial investigation; only some of them do so. The selected elements of the special pre-trial investigation regime are regulated by the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, but the author notes the need for their further development. The author notes a need to further improve the current legislation on the special regime of pre-trial investigation under martial law. Keywords: special regime, criminal proceedings, pre-trial investigation, martial law.

During the study, problematic issues related to the collection and use of documents as sources of evidence in criminal proceedings were outlined. It was determined that in modern criminal proceedings, documents occupy an important place among sources of evidence. Their use allows for the establishment of facts that are significant for resolving the case, as well as contributing to the disclosure of circumstances surrounding the offense. However, the process of collecting, verifying, and using documents in criminal proceedings is accompanied by a number of complex issues related to their authenticity, admissibility, legality of acquisition, and proper evaluation in court. Criteria were outlined to distinguish between the concepts of “documents as sources of evidence” and “documents as physical evidence”. It was emphasized that in criminal proceedings, the most common documents used as sources of evidence are in written form. The study highlighted that electronic documents are widely used in law enforcement activities, particularly in cases involving crimes committed using computers, systems, and networks, among other things. It was established that a document, as one of the procedural sources of evidence, is a material object specially created to preserve information, containing data recorded through written signs, sounds, images, etc., which can be used as evidence of facts or circumstances established during the criminal proceedings and significant for the case. It must meet the requirements of relevance, admissibility, authenticity, and sufficiency. In conclusion, it was noted that the problematic issues of collecting and using documents as sources of evidence in criminal proceedings are determined by several factors, including technical, legal, and ethical nuances. On the one hand, it is necessary to consider a wide range of various documents and their formats to ensure the completeness and objectivity of the investigation. On the other hand, it is important to adhere to the principles of legitimacy, confidentiality, and legal validity when collecting and using documents, in order to avoid violations of individuals' rights and ensure a fair judicial process.

This article addresses the issue of effective enforcement of investment arbitration awards in disputes This article delves deeper into the critical issue of the legality of the composition of the court as a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial in the first instance of criminal proceedings. Such breaches can lead to the nullification of court decisions due to the infringement of the right to be tried by a legally constituted court. It highlights the procedural safeguards outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and evaluates their alignment with international legal standards, particularly the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article underscores that the composition of the court is a cornerstone of judicial independence and impartiality, which are essential for ensuring public confidence in the justice system. A key focus is on the automated case distribution system, which is intended to prevent external interference and ensure the random assignment of judges. Violations of this procedure — such as manual interference in case allocation, arbitrary assignment of judges, or failure to consider legitimate challenges against a judge — are identified as major threats to judicial fairness. The article examines several prominent cases where deviations from the prescribed procedures resulted in successful appeals and reversals of judgments. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the importance of enhancing legal frameworks to monitor and enforce the legality of the court’s composition. One significant recommendation is the introduction of a specialized appellate mechanism that would allow for the immediate and independent review of decisions to refuse a judge’s disqualification. This proposal aligns with the need to strengthen judicial accountability while preserving judicial autonomy. The main conclusions drawn in this work are based on the analysis of scientific provisions of the criminal procedure doctrine, provisions of the current legislation in the field of criminal procedure law, court practice and other factors affecting legal relations. The article also advocates for more transparent oversight mechanisms, such as periodic audits of the automated case distribution system and public access to information regarding the formation of judicial panels. These measures aim to prevent abuses of power and foster greater public trust in the judiciary. By analyzing both domestic legal provisions and international human rights obligations, the article proposes practical reforms to align Ukraine’s legal practices with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These reforms would safeguard the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the judiciary, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and the fundamental right to a fair trial. Key words: legitimacy of the court, criminal proceedings, fair trial, recusal of a judge, automated distribution of cases, independence of the court, European Court of Human Rights, Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, impartiality

The article analyzes the issues of legal regulation of the plea bargaining institution, which in the author's opinion do not contribute to ensuring the implementation of the objectives of criminal proceedings and contradict its principles. It is proved that the restriction of such a right is one of the preconditions for abuse by the prosecutor in concluding a plea bargaining. The author reveals the shortcomings of this institution, which negatively affect the implementation of the prosecutor as a key party to the plea bargaining of its powers and provide the prosecutor with hypothetical opportunities to abuse their rights during the conclusion of such a plea bargaining. The ways to eliminate the identified shortcomings are suggested. The inexpediency of restricting the right of a prosecutor, including a higher-level prosecutor, to appeal a sentence under a plea bargaining is substantiated, as such a restriction is one of the preconditions for abusing the prosecutor's right in concluding such an agreement. Moreover, the research does not identify sufficient grounds to restrict the prosecutor's right to appeal a sentence on the basis on a plea bargaining. The article presents the results of the study of court decisions and materials of criminal cases, which confirm that violations of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are committed by both prosecutors and judges. Moreover, the article studies the cases of violation of the rights and interests of the person in the conclusion of plea bargaining, which, in connection with the restrictions established by Part 4 of Art 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the prosecutor's right to appeal the sentence on the basis on a plea bargaining, remain unresolved. Restricting the right of a prosecutor, including a high-level prosecutor, to appeal a sentence on the basis on a plea bargaining significantly violates the rights and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings and does not contribute to the effective performance of his tasks. It is proposed to secure for the prosecutor the right to appeal the sentence on the basis on a plea bargaining in case the court does not verify the circumstances provided for in Part 7 of Art 474 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the author concludes that it is necessary to establish additional grounds for the court's refusal to approve the plea bargaining. As a result, in order to effectively apply this institution, it is necessary to make the significant changes to the legislation.