Searches and work of anti -corruption bodies: which will change after the signing of Zelensky Bill No. 12414

The Verkhovna Rada adopted the Bill No. 12414, which changes to the CPC of Ukraine, in particular, expanding the powers of the Prosecutor General and regulating the “urgent” searches. Although The bill has positive aspects, its implementation raises questions about the autonomy of anti -corruption bodies and possible strengthening of manual administration of justice. Will it be a step back in reforming justice? Bogdan Koval says Leshchenko & Partners, specialization-criminal law and White-Collar Crime (WCC)

Buy an annual subscription on 6 magazines forbes Ukraine with meaningful materials, ratings and analytics from 1 350 UAH.

On July 22, the Verkhovna Rada supported the Bill No. 12414, which amends the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CCP) and a number of other laws. Despite the officially declared goal, to improve the investigation of the disappearance of persons in martial law – the real content of the document is much wider and contains norms that cause professional concern. At the same time, there are positive signals.

Negative signal First of all, the unprecedented attention is attracted Concentration of authority in the hands of the Prosecutor General. The bill gives him an exclusive right:

Popular Category Innovation Date yesterday Kyivstar has applied for the third time to the AMCU for buying tabletki.ua. What are the chances? Forbes ukraine has learned new details of a potential agreement

• to approve the petition to extend the terms of pre -trial investigation;
• resolve disputes between NABU and Bab;
• to identify prosecutors in criminal proceedings individually, in particular, to transfer cases of NABU to other bodies;
• to conclude agreements on the recognition of guilty in corruption criminal offenses without the participation of prosecutors of the SAP.

So the specialized anti -corruption prosecutor’s office is actually loses its autonomyturning into a prosecutor General’s Office Unit without an independent procedural role. This not only weakens the independence of anti -corruption investigations, but also calls doubt on the effectiveness of the anti -corruption model that has been built for years with the participation of international partners.

There is also a positive A positive signal is an attempt regulating the problem of so -called urgent searches. Business and human rights defenders have repeatedly emphasized that the practice of conducting searches without the decision of the investigating judge went beyond exceptions and turned into a systemic one.

Based on the content of the bill No. 12414, it can be assumed that the authors tried to limit the possibility of urgent searches in criminal proceedings, where the object of encroachment is the life and health of the person.

The bill changes Part 3 of Art. 233 of the CCP, establishing that:

“Investigator, investigator, prosecutor has the right to enter the residence of the judge or other possession of a person only in urgent cases related to the saving of people’s lives, prevention of direct threat to their health, sexual freedom or personal safety or with direct persecution 127, 129, 135, 136, 146, 147, 149, 152–1561, 258, 2581, 259 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, or if necessary, urgent withdrawal or preservation of evidence concerning such crimes. ”

However realization came out legally imperfect. It is not clear why the legislator selectively approached the choice of articles of the Criminal Code, which allow urgent searches. The list does not take into account all offenses where the object or health of a person is the object of encroachment.

For example, the crimes under Article 348 of the Criminal Code-the encroachment on the life of a law enforcement officer, Article 348-1-encroachment on the life of a journalist and others, remained over the attention of the authors of the bill for unclear reasons.

In addition, the formulation of this rule is generally contrary to Article 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which directly and comprehensively defines the grounds for penetration into housing. These grounds cannot be narrowed by the provisions of the procedural law without appropriate changes to the Constitution. And since its norms have a direct effect, in this part, law enforcement officers will still be guided by the basic law.

At the same time, the legislator goes beyond the constitutional rule in part of this article, which provides one of the grounds for penetration into the housing without a court order – “the need for urgent removal or preservation of evidence concerning such crimes.” While the Constitution provides for the possibility of such actions only to save property, which is not always identical to the concept of “evidence”. Therefore, the legislator grossly violated the rule of legal technique and legal hermeneutics.

In other words, the problem, though marked but will remain unsolved. At the same time, the vector of the legislative initiative – to recognize the problem and try to organize it – should be considered positive.

What about the expansion of the prosecutor General’s staff? Separately deserves attention to expansion of personnel powers d Eneral prosecutor: he receives prosecutors without competitive procedures for the period of martial law.

On the one hand, this is invested in the general trend of strengthening the manual management of the prosecutor’s office. But on the other hand, in the conditions of war, such a norm can be applied, because the prosecutor’s office is now experiencing a significant personnel deficit, and competitive procedures last years.

In such a situation, quick solutions can be more justified than a formal time -delayed procedure.

Therefore, we can only evaluate the effectiveness of such decisions over time – as a result of their practical application.

The questions remain open:

• Will the SAP stay effective in the anti -corruption system when key levers outside it?
• Do we not return to manual administration of justice under the guise of reform and adaptation to martial law?
• If anti -corruption infrastructure has no autonomy, is it at all?

The gun