Общественные отношения как предмет уголовно-правового регулирования и объект социально-правового воздействия

The article examines the specifics of the philosophical and legal classification of crime in the conceptual positions of the theory of state and law. The categorical classification of the objects of the crime system as structured vertically and structured horizontally, which allowed distribution of crimes directly, kind, generic, general, was analyzed. It is shown that the general object of the crime is traditionally in the conceptual positions of the theory of state and law called the whole set of social relations, which are protected by criminal law. The generic object of the crime is a certain circle of homogeneous economic, social, political content of social relations, which, for some reason, should be protected by a single set of legal norms. It is made general that the specific object of a crime is a set of social relations within the generic object, which reflect the same interest of the participants in such relations or express though the nonidentical, but closely interrelated interests. The direct object of the crime is those specifically social relations, set by the legislator under the protection of a certain legal norm. It is shown that structured horizontal objects of crime are distributed directly to the main and directly additional. It is traced that under the direct object of the crime is understood those social relations, the violation of which is the social content of the crime and for the protection of which there is a legal norm, which implies responsibility for the commission of the crime. Under the direct additional object of the crime are those social relations, the encroachment on which does not constitute the content of the crime, but the commission of such a crime is always caused damage. It is concluded that the study of the concept of crime within the conceptual concepts of the theory of state and law is justified by the subject of its study. The fundamental questions in this context arose the problem of what exactly is the legal facts, which, depending on the result, can be classified categorically into legal, lawful, and law-stopping. It is proved that the most important is the distribution of legal facts by their individual connection with the participants in the legal relationship. Thus, according to the categorical regularity of concepts of the theory of state and law, wrongful actions are divided, first, into offenses, that is, crimes and misdemeanors; and secondly, on objectively unlawful acts.

It is indicated that in the realities that have formed in our country in recent years, compliance with the principle of the rule of law, in particular its element of proportionality, is gaining increasing relevance. Cases of restriction of human rights are increasingly encountered in social and legal relations, therefore, studying the role of the principle of proportionality in the restriction of constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen in Ukraine is currently an urgent necessity. In particular, questions arise regarding the legality and expediency of restrictions on human and citizen rights during martial law, when the interests of the state have a higher priority than the interests of an individual. Therefore, the problem of improving the legislative regulation of the principle of proportionality is important, which will allow for effective protection of human rights and maintaining a balance between individual rights and public interests, in particular in emergency situations. The article analyzes proportionality as an important element of the principle of the rule of law in the context of constitutional law. The focus is on the indispensability of this principle in the sphere of restriction of human rights in Ukraine in modern conditions. Separately, the historical development of the principle of proportionality, the concepts associated with it, its consolidation in international practice, in particular in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as its use in Ukrainian judicial practice, in particular in conditions of martial law, are considered. The relevance of the principle of proportionality when restricting human rights and freedoms in crisis situations, such as quarantine or martial law, is emphasized, and the need for a clear consolidation of this principle in national legislation is emphasized. The author concludes that the principle of proportionality is not only a legal instrument for ensuring legality and justice when restricting human rights, but also an important element for preserving democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms in independent sovereign Ukraine. It is it that ensures full and comprehensive observance of human and citizen rights and freedoms, in particular during special legal regimes, such as martial law. It also determines that restrictions must be minimal and not exceed what is necessary to achieve a specific goal.

In the introductory section, we begin from the premise that the medieval period in the social development of the Serbian people was an era marked by profound shifts in collective “identity,” and that the formation of the first Serbian state in the 12th century represents one of the most significant phases in the political and cultural flourishing of medieval Serbia. During this time, customary law gradually lost its dominance as a major source of legal authority, and its role was increasingly assumed by medieval charters. These charters effectively served as the ruler’s authoritative commands regulating legal and social relations within a given Serbian estate, as well as responses to specific social circumstances, processes, and relations. The subject of this paper lies in the description and analysis of the major state-building undertakings of rulers of the medieval Serbian state, viewed through selected gift charters. These charters—issued to regulate relations among the population, establish patronage over monasteries, and promote the development of cultural life—functioned as instruments for ensuring equality within broader social and legal relations. The methodological framework of the paper includes the comparative-historical method and methods pertaining to the internal understanding of law (Saša Bovan, 2020).The aim of the paper is to highlight the legal provisions of the Gračanica Charter and the charter of King Stefan Dušan donating the Church of St. Nicholas in Vranje to the Hilandar Monastery. In this regard, these charters remain exemplary documents and a meaningful field of inquiry for scholars and educators engaged with socio-legal history and university-level legal education. They illustrate the social significance of charters and demonstrate how rulers, through acts of donation, exercised control over the rights and obligations of dependent populations toward monastic communities. Relying on legal provisions, charters also served to secure equality in social relations, taking into account not only wealthy and notable families, but also the poor, soldiers, ethnic minorities such as the Vlachs, as well as monks and abbots.The contribution that this modest paper offers to the course Foundations of the Sociology of Law lies in its explanation and distinction of historical and real events, social processes, and social relations within the medieval Serbian state, as well as the mechanisms through which the state successfully defended itself from spiritual and political pressures, including external threats originating from Greek and papal spheres of influence. The paper demonstrates that more stable social relations and the establishment of social balance among all strata of the population were achieved primarily through adherence to the legal norms and obligations set forth by rulers in their acts of donation, recorded in charters. As sources of law, charters are sociologically significant because they encompass an essential social value—social equality—which is crucial for maintaining the functioning of the community and its social equilibrium.

Criminal law is often described as the field of law that expresses the strongest national characteristics of a given jurisdiction and is the least amenable to change. Naturally, social rules providing some kind of penalty when violated have existed throughout the history of mankind. In Europe, the current understanding of criminal law has been shaped by Enlightenment thought, the ideas of human rights, liberalism and finally the national movements which led, inter alia, to the famous codifications of criminal law of the 19th century. In Russia, criminal law has certainly (not been isolated from the developments that took place in 19th century Europe. For example, the abolition of corporal punishment is but one good marker of humanisation. But compared to Europe, codified criminal law in Russia has been much less understood as the magna charta of the offender (Franz von Liszt), eventually leading to the study of human rights in criminal law. Rather, it has been viewed as the expression of the Tsars unfettered power to mete out punishment, - a line of thinking which indicates the continuing difficulty in Russian criminal law doctrine to accept limitations on the power of the legislator to criminalize. This paper will not deal with Russian doctrinal approaches to criminal law in a direct way. Instead, its purpose is to demonstrate the European Unions (EUs) current thinking on the effects that human rights have on the development of criminal law. As of today, criminal law is under a variety of influences among which the changing understanding of human rights is a very important one. In the Western world, there is a large amount of literature dealing with human rights and criminal law in general1 [1; 2], and it is hardly possible to come to an overall systematization. To be sure, there are parts of criminal law which have experienced very little change in light of human rights. One central tenet of human rights, for example, is the equality of men2 (in a pre-modern reading to include also women) which leads to the criminalization of slavery, slave trade, forced labor and trafficking in human beings. The smuggling of humans, on the other hand, is a much more controversial topic due to the fact that states show a strong desire to criminalize irregular migration. Another pillar of human rights is the human right to property3 which informs a whole range of criminal law provisions for violations of the right to property on land (theft, robbery, etc.) and on water (piracy). By comparison, the right to life is a more difficult concept. Human rights are behind the global drive for abolishing the death penalty4, but a number of other life-related issues are determined less by human rights than by religious and ethical views, such as the criminalization of abortion, aiding and abetting suicide, and euthanasia. Finally, a number of human rights are experiencing a very lively debate, e.g. freedom of speech5 [3] and freedom of religion, consequently there is also a high impact on the development of criminal law. European criminal law, understood as the total of the harmonized national criminal law systems of the EU Member states, offers a good example to study the effects of human rights. In the literature, there is the argument that changes in the understanding of human rights can lead both to criminalization and to de-criminalization. This has also been described as the «sword» function of human rights (using human rights to call for criminalization) and the «shield» function (using human rights law to call for limits to the use of criminal law and even de-criminalization) [1]. Both functions can be observed in a nutshell when analyzing the European criminal law that has emerged in the course of the last decade. For Russia, this article represents a (hopefully timely) contribution to the still nascent discussion on the effects of human rights on criminal law. Despite the Preamble to the newly adopted Constitution of the Russian Federation (RF) which affirms the role of human rights, Article 15 (4) Constitution RF limits the direct impact of human rights law to the universally accepted norms and principles of international law as well as to treaties concluded by the RF. The Constitution therefore appears to be closing the door to cutting-edge developments in international human rights law which are still not universally accepted.

The article deals with the topical issues of criminal sentencing in the context of implementing the principle of humanity, the problems of legislative regulation of this principle in the criminal law and ensuring human rights and freedoms, including personal freedom, personal inviolability and dignity of the individual in the mechanism of criminal law regulation. The purpose of the study is to reveal the concept of humanism as a principle of the law from the point of view of the strategic component in the development of legal policy, including the criminal law; to analyze comprehensively the legislative formula containing the definition of the principle of humanity, and the development of proposals for its actualization. Materials and methods. Implementation of the research goal was achieved with the help of general scientific (analysis, synthesis) and specific scientific (formal legal, comparative legal) methods. Results. The variety of approaches to the concept of "humanism" is analyzed, taking into account the accumulated knowledge in the field of social sciences, including legal sciences. The legal assessment of the legislative formula defining the principle within the framework of Article 7 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is given. It is noted that the result of implementing the humanistic principles in the criminal law is legislative consolidation in the criminal law of the system of punishments, types of punishments and other measures of a criminal legal nature that differ in alternativeness, as well as formation of sanctions of criminal law norms that enable the court to selectively implement the approach against the person who committed the crime. At the same time, the conclusion is formulated that there is a variety of forms of regulating the signs and properties of the principle of humanism in various norms of both General and Special parts of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Conclusions. The above-stated makes it possible to suggest that the legislative formalization of the principle of humanity in the criminal law is aimed at implementing criminal liability measures to the extent that they provide criminal protection of the interests of a person, the society and the state. At this, the measures of legal influence provided for by the criminal law must contain permissible types of criminal punishment and other measures of a criminal-legal nature, as well as orient the law enforcement officer to establish a "minimum amount of punishment severity". At the same time, the principle of humanity in the criminal law presupposes using measures to the guilty person that are both humanistic and sufficient to achieve the purpose of the criminal law, i.e. to restore social justice, correct the convicted person and prevent crimes. In the face of new threats and challenges the legislative regulation of criminal liability requires a systematic modernization aimed at regulating the elements of crimes that pose increased danger and decriminalizing previously existing elements of crimes, taking into account the loss of their public danger. Consequently, introducing this category into the mechanism of criminal law regulation means the establishment in the law of criminal law protection of the entire "complex of rights and interests of the individual".

The issue of criminal law regulation of legal relations, the main purpose of which is to regulate the legal relations arising between the State and a person who has committed a criminal offence, with regard to imposing criminal liability or exemption from such liability, has been repeatedly studied by scholars in the science of criminal law. At the same time, such criminal law regulation does not apply to cases where legal relations between the State and a person arise as a result of causing damage to the object of criminal law protection by an act which is not a criminal offence. In this regard, it is possible to distinguish a non-classical type of criminal law regulation, one of the types of which is the regulation of relations arising in cases of exclusion of criminal liability. The article examines the mechanism of such regulation and its elements: a legal provision (provisions contained both in the Criminal Code of Ukraine and in other regulatory legislation), a legal fact (commission by a person of an act which is not a criminal offence), relevant legal relations (and their content), and an act of exercising the rights and obligations of the subjects of such legal relations (a resolution to close criminal proceedings or an acquittal). The author identifies the specific features of criminal law regulation of legal relations arising in case of exclusion of criminal liability. In addition, the article uses the results of interviews and surveys of 30 respondents who are current criminal justice practitioners, namely, judges, prosecutors, officers of the National Police of Ukraine and attorneys-at-law. The survey and interviews were conducted to investigate the opinions on the grounds for closing criminal proceedings in cases of exclusion of criminal liability: 1) closure of criminal proceedings due to the absence of a criminal offence; 2) closure of criminal proceedings due to the absence of a criminal offence.

Introduction. This article continues the discussion regarding “actual” legal relations and the regulators of “actual” legal relations. Theoretical Basis. Methods. Scientific knowledge for this article has been established using wellknown researches of the subject made by Russian and foreign authors, and criticisms of outdated provisions based on positivism. The author’s argument is supported by references to the works of not only legal scholars, but also representatives of other sciences (N. Wiener, N. I. Zhukov, L. A. Petrushenko, etc.) The study was conducted from the perspective of an integrative legal understanding. The methodology of general scientific character (formal logic, theory of systems, philosophy) was used, which allowed strengthened conclusions about the nature of “actual” legal relations, both their origin and their development. The use of private scientific methods (formal legal, comparative legal, analysis of national legal acts) allowed determination of the essence of “actual” legal relations, to differentiate legal relations and social. social relations, etc. Results. Two conclusions were reached. Firstly: “actual” legal relations are the objective legal reality, namely existing legal relations, settled first of all by the principles and norms of law contained in a single, developing and multilevel system of forms of national and (or) international law, realised in the state. Secondly: “actual” legal relations – namely the essence of objective legal reality; The regulators of “actual” legal relations are the forms of their expression. Discussion and Conclusion. The regulators of “actual legal relations” are developed as a result of the development of “actual” legal relations, called by Roman lawyers juris vinculum (legal relations related to objective law).

The work is devoted to the concept of human rights and freedoms in the context of globalization. The concept of the human dimension of globalization, the factors influencing the content of human and peoples' rights and freedoms are analyzed. In particular, human rights standards in the field of modern information technologies have been determined. It is determined that the transformation of society is due to the development of the information society and the gradual transition to a knowledge society, the impact of digitalization on all social processes. The active use of digital technologies in various spheres of life has led to the question of the need and sufficiency of human and civil rights and freedoms, and highlighted the concept of digital human rights and freedoms. Summarizing different approaches, it is determined that the globalization of human rights is a process of influencing human rights of various factors and factors of international importance (political, social, economic, information, etc.) in individual countries; the interdependence of the social status of the individual from the life of peoples and humanity as a whole and vice versa; it is the universalization of positive world experience in the field of human rights, recognition and consolidation of the universal status of human rights and freedoms, their protection at the international level. It is analyzed that personal rights and freedoms are known to be inseparable from the security of man, society and the state. Under these conditions, the problem of finding a balance between the protection of privacy, including information privacy, and the need to protect information and national security becomes relevant. That is, in the conditions of the rule of law and the development of the information society, restrictions on the arbitrary treatment of human rights, in particular in the information sphere, should be legally defined. This problem has become significantly more relevant in the current context of digital transformation and the introduction of an emergency situation related to quarantine and restrictive measures, which has helped to identify a number of important issues that need urgent attention. The transformation of society is due to the development of the information society and the gradual transition to a knowledge society, the impact of digitalization on all social processes. The active use of digital technologies in various spheres of life has led to the question of the need and sufficiency of human and civil rights and freedoms, and highlighted the concept of digital human rights and freedoms.
 Digital rights include fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, privacy, the right to information, the right to participate in public affairs, etc., and such as the right to be forgotten, the right to anonymity, or even the right to the Internet. .
 The modern scientific literature identifies and explores such new rights as the right to be forgotten, the right to anonymity, the right to personal data protection, the right to digital education and access to digital knowledge; rights related to the protection of genetic information; the right to participate in the turnover of property in the digital sphere, etc. It is noted that the right to privacy, which is one of the main rights that embody human freedom in its negative sense, ie freedom from outside interference, is particularly vulnerable in the digital transformation era. The right to education is also actively developing in the digital age. A new right has been defined - the "right to digital death". Attention is paid to the group of digital rights, which are designed to ensure the implementation of constitutional principles in the democratic system of our state, so the category of "electronic democracy" is firmly in modern constitutional and legal usage. It is concluded that ensuring security in the information and communication environment is becoming a priority area of ​​scientific and technical activities, requiring significant attention and efforts from man, society, government agencies and legal science of the state.

The introduction of digital technologies into the sphere of human rights and freedoms is ambiguous, leading to a blurring of established ideas about constitutional human rights and freedoms. In general, all groups of constitutional human rights and freedoms have been digitalized. The use of digital technologies and artificial intelligence has contributed to the creation of new forms of implementation of constitutional rights and freedoms. However, digitalization has also created new threats that can only be neutralized by creating new legal mechanisms. Practice has shown that law as a universal social regulator is applicable to regulating public relations in the digital environment. Spontaneous instruments of self-regulation are not based on basic constitutional principles, including the recognition of human rights and freedoms as the highest value, therefore, they cannot serve as the main source of regulation. In the context of rapidly developing technologies and changing public relations, the importance of constitutional principles, as well as human rights and freedoms, as a basic value, the foundation for building new legal relations in the digital environment and creating new digital rights is increasing. In particular, given the extent of the penetration of digital technologies into the implementation of constitutional human rights and freedoms, it is necessary first of all to legislate the guarantee of human access to the Internet as a condition for the implementation of constitutional rights and freedoms in the digital environment, as well as to supplement the provisions prohibiting discrimination of human rights and freedoms depending on the form of rights and freedoms implementation.

Subject of the research. The article considers two levels in the mechanism of protection of human rights and freedoms: national and supranational. National includes both judicial and non-judicial methods of protection. The supranational level is represented by universal (global) and regional ways. The purpose of the research is to identify an effective mechanism for the protection of human rights that can replace the mechanism of protection provided by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, which has ceased to be valid for citizens of the Russian Federation. Research methods are the formal-legal method, analysis, synthesis, formallogical method.The main results. Theoretically, a particular citizen can use any of the national and supranational mechanisms for the protection of human rights. However, the nature of their action and the procedure for gaining access to these mechanisms are different, which affects their effectiveness and the readiness of a person to turn to one or another method of protection. Among supranational mechanisms, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 has a unique status: on the one hand, this document is “a symbol of the moral consensus of all states, the starting point for the creation of a modern human rights regime”; on the other hand, it is an act-declaration, the application of which in specific legal relations and the protection of human rights with its help are problematic. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 12/16/1966 provides for the establishment of a Human Rights Committee that exercises control over the provisions of the Covenant through a system of reports. Reports on measures taken to implement the rights provided for by the Covenant, as well as on non-fulfillment of their obligations under the Covenant by other States Parties, are submitted by States Parties. The mechanism of reports, however, is not reliable enough - there are states that ignore it.Regional Conventions are rightly considered the most effective means of protecting human rights. The implementation of the provisions of the Conventions is ensured by the activities of supranational judicial bodies, to which the applicant can file a complaint. The conditions for applying to such a court, its territorial proximity, the possibility of executing court decisions make this method of protection as accessible as possible. Among the national remedies, first of all, it should be noted the activity of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. The provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the section on human rights are almost identical, often written in the same phrases. But, despite the number of coincidences in the designation of human rights and freedoms, the main thing is not the designation (this is a declaration) of a specific right or freedom, but how they are applied and what is the practice of their protection (interpretation) by the Constitutional Court at the national level and the Convention on the supranational. It is here that the understanding of “identical” formulations can differ, and the question of who is better: a national or supranational body protects a particular human right, becomes debatable. It should also be remembered about the very meaning of supranational protection as an opportunity to receive protection from one's own state, albeit a subsidiary one. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that in the absence of the possibility of applying to the ECHR, a citizen will be able to receive protection in the Constitutional Court without prejudice to the outcome of such protection.Considering that the protection of human rights is, first of all, the activity of national courts of first instance, consideration by the courts of administrative, civil and criminal cases, in cases where it is carried out in full compliance with the norms of procedural legislation, is able to fully ensure the protection of the rights and human freedoms. To do this, the courts have all the necessary tools, you just need the ability and desire to use them.Among the internal structures for monitoring the observance of human rights, a number of state and public bodies can be distinguished - the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, the police, the prosecutor's office and others. However, it is not possible to attribute them to the effective bodies for the protection of human rights.Conclusions. The existing national and supranational mechanisms for the protection of human rights, in their effectiveness, are not able to fully compensate for the loss of the opportunity for citizens of the Russian Federation to file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.

The ideas presented here are based on the way in which scientific research in the field of law (criminal law in particular) evolves. The anticipation of natural questions is followed by recommendations that are not intended to be decisive in the choice of topic and the orientation of the research, but rather to support the integrity and coherence of the approach. Even if the subject is oriented towards clarifying the structure of a doctoral thesis, the recommendations are applicable to any type of research in the field of legal sciences, an article or a study. The doctoral thesis must bring an element of novelty to the research of the field studied, to clarify an ambiguity that may arise from the interpretation of the law, from the application of the law, from the evaluation of the efficiency or constitutionality of an existing regulation or from the evaluation of the need for a new regulation. The originality of a thesis must concern both its basic idea (what the paper seeks to demonstrate) and the content (what are the conclusions reached regarding the purpose pursued within the analysis of the institution/notion of criminal law studied). The purpose of the paper, the research objective will be correlated with the questions that the thesis seeks to answer and the hypotheses that are to be verified. Each part of the thesis will aim to analyze, from the perspective of criminal law, criminal procedural law and, subsidiary, criminology, the regulation of the most important components of the institution/notion of criminal law studied and their effects on social relations: for example, to examine the relationship between certain legal relations of criminal law, to evaluate the effectiveness of an institution/norm in relation to the purpose pursued by the legislator, to investigate the elements of conventionality or constitutionality of a norm, to analyze the changes in the conditions of existence of an institution/norm studied etc. Neither the validity of choosing the hypothesis verified by the work nor the scientific character of the work depend on the positive or negative conclusion reached as a result of the study. However, the paper should not stop at solutions that could not be anticipated as being applicable in national law, either for reasons related to the incompatibility with the criminal system as a whole, or because they would impose logistical and personnel costs that are not compatible with what we imagine could be invested in justice/the criminal law system.

The article examines the problem of systematizing crimes against the foundations of Ukraine’s national security, defining their generic object, functional purpose, and the legal limits of criminalization of such acts. The study emphasizes the interrelation between theoretical and praxeological aspects of the criminal law protection of state security and the practice of counterintelligence and operational-investigative documentation. The author analyzes the evolution of legal approaches to differentiating these crimes, identifies the shortcomings of the current classification, and proposes its improvement taking into account contemporary challenges such as hybrid aggression, information and cyber threats, and the financing of terrorism. A comparative legal analysis of the legislation of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian countries allows assessing the effectiveness of various models of criminalization and their adaptability to the Ukrainian legal framework. Particular attention is paid to the issues of proving and documenting crimes against the foundations of national security, to the significance of the subject of proof for organizing counterintelligence and operational-investigative activities, and to the role of procedural legalization of factual data in pre-trial investigation. The study reveals the impact of digital technologies and cyberspace on the state’s criminal law policy and on the boundaries of permissible interference with privacy in the investigation of crimes against sovereignty and territorial integrity. The purpose of the article is to form the author’s conceptual vision of crimes against the foundations of Ukraine’s national security, to determine the specific features of their criminal law classification, and to outline directions for improving legislation in light of contemporary threats, international experience, the theory of evidence, and the practice of counterintelligence activity. The research employs a complex of general scientific and special legal methods of cognition, including dialectical, historical-legal, comparative-legal, formal-legal, as well as methods of systemic analysis and structural-functional generalization. As a result, the author identifies three approaches to understanding the concept of crimes against the foundations of national security: the elemental approach (through the system of elements of the corpus delicti), the praxeological approach (through the activity of authorized bodies and the procedures of proof), and the comprehensive approach (combining legal, organizational, and evidentiary dimensions). Supporting the comprehensive approach, the author defines crimes against the foundations of Ukraine’s national security as socially dangerous acts prescribed by criminal law that encroach upon the fundamental state and social interests in the spheres of sovereignty, territorial integrity, defense capability, information, and political stability of the state. From the author’s standpoint, criminal law activity in the field of national security includes the following elements: subjects (state security and law enforcement agencies), objects (social relations in the sphere of protection of state sovereignty), legal basis (norms of criminal legislation), methods and means (criminalization, prevention, sanctions, and proving), and the result – ensuring the security of the individual, society, and the state. A distinctive feature is that society and the state act simultaneously as subjects and objects of this activity, while the effectiveness of criminal law enforcement depends on the quality of documentation, admissibility of evidence, and compliance with human rights during investigation.

The public interest right as a ground for restriction of the ownership right is studied in this article. The notion of sustainable development, widely discussed in recent years at the international level, considers the thesis of balanced regulation of economic relations as one of the main principles of state policy. The balanced regulation of economic relations is impossible without clear definition of the areas of private and public interests in law, as well as without development of the common approaches to the notion, content, criteria, and principles of restriction of the ownership rights. The purpose of this study is to analyze public interest as a groundfor restriction of the ownership right. This scientific work is based on the dialectical method, in which each legal phenomenon is considered in development, in constant movement, and the contradictions of different levels within the framework of the common system are recognized as the internal impulses of development. The principle of systematic analysis of the limits of implementation and restrictions of private and public ownership rights is actively applied. The study proposes to expand the subject composition in legal relations on restriction of the ownership rights and to introduce a new subject of law (the ʽfuture generationsʽ), the interests of which may become the limit of the implementation of the ownership right; the authors' definition of the ʽinterest of the societyʽ is given, the conclusion is madethat the restrictions of the ownership rights are independent legal relationships, arising from the legal facts, based on the law. The proposal is substantiated that in the system of fundamental human rights and freedoms it is necessary to single out the right to property as the basic right of an individual (person), different from the ownership right. The right to property is a potential, yet unrealized opportunity for everyone to possess any property. The conclusions and proposals made in the study will make it possible to ensure the balance of the property interests of the owners and the society.

The public interest right as a ground for restriction of the ownership right is studied in this article. The notion of sustainable development, widely discussed in recent years at the international level, considers the thesis of balanced regulation of economic relations as one of the main principles of state policy. The balanced regulation of economic relations is impossible without clear definition of the areas of private and public interests in law, as well as without development of the common approaches to the notion, content, criteria, and principles of restriction of the ownership rights. The purpose of this study is to analyze public interest as a groundfor restriction of the ownership right. This scientific work is based on the dialectical method, in which each legal phenomenon is considered in development, in constant movement, and the contradictions of different levels within the framework of the common system are recognized as the internal impulses of development. The principle of systematic analysis of the limits of implementation and restrictions of private and public ownership rights is actively applied. The study proposes to expand the subject composition in legal relations on restriction of the ownership rights and to introduce a new subject of law (the ʽfuture generationsʽ), the interests of which may become the limit of the implementation of the ownership right; the authors' definition of the ʽinterest of the societyʽ is given, the conclusion is madethat the restrictions of the ownership rights are independent legal relationships, arising from the legal facts, based on the law. The proposal is substantiated that in the system of fundamental human rights and freedoms it is necessary to single out the right to property as the basic right of an individual (person), different from the ownership right. The right to property is a potential, yet unrealized opportunity for everyone to possess any property. The conclusions and proposals made in the study will make it possible to ensure the balance of the property interests of the owners and the society.

The relevance of the study, given the law enforcement practice of the courts of Ukraine and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, based on the coverage of standard decisions, lies in identifying some errors in the pre-trial investigation. Further, the study disclosed the issues related to the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms during the surveillance. The purpose of the study is to identify the main reasons for recognising the evidence obtained during covert investigative action as inadmissible in the course of the trial. The methodological basis of the study is a comparative legal method based on the evaluation approach, a formal legal (dogmatic) method, analysis and synthesis. The study highlights individual papers in the context of the issue under consideration, which allowed disclosing the content of each of the areas and tracing their relationship. Based on the review of judicial practice and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the main reasons for declaring evidence inadmissible are presented and substantiated. In addition, individual court decisions on non-compliance with constitutional human rights and freedoms during such a covert investigative (search) action as surveillance are summarised and characterised. It was proved and argued that authorised bodies that have the right to authorise surveillance must comply with the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is determined in which cases the court may recognise evidence obtained during surveillance as admissible. The ultima ratio principle, which guarantees the observance of constitutional human and civil rights and freedoms during pre-trial investigations, is highlighted separately. A personal opinion on each of the analysed decisions is formulated, considering national and international legislation. The practical value lies in the fact that the results of the study allow the prosecution to avoid mistakes during the collection of evidence in criminal proceedings.