Cancellation Of Seizure Of Property At The Stage Of Pre-Trial Investigation As An Element Of Due Legal Procedure
In the article, with the aim of researching the legal and practical model of cancellation of property seizure in criminal proceedings at the stage of pre-trial investigation and determining ways of their improvement, it is emphasized that the institution of cancellation of property seizure in criminal proceedings is a necessary element of the observance of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms regarding the restoration of the right to peaceful possession of property, in which the state intervened during the investigation of the criminal proceedings, which were closed.
Considered topical issues of the procedure for canceling the seizure of property during the pre-trial investigation in case of closing the criminal proceedings by the investigator or inquirer. The ways of canceling the arrest imposed on property within the framework of criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation are highlighted.
It is pointed out the unequal judicial practice regarding the solution of this issue, which was regulated by the adoption of a resolution by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Further changes in the legislation regarding the termination of the decisions of the investigating judge on the application of measures to ensure the criminal proceedings, which include the seizure of property, after the closure of the criminal proceedings, despite the fact that they should have changed judicial practice, but did not have a significant impact.
Attention is focused on different ways of interpreting the procedural norm regarding the powers of the prosecutor to cancel the seizure of property upon closing the criminal proceedings, one of which empowers the prosecutor to issue a resolution on the cancellation of the seizure of property, even if the criminal proceedings are closed by the decision of the investigator, inquirer.
The necessity of streamlining judicial practice and legislation, which regulates the procedure for keeping registers of encumbrances of property rights, is indicated. A conclusion was made regarding the need to improve the procedure for canceling the seizure of property in criminal proceedings in terms of introducing a mechanism for automatic restoration of the rights of the owner (possessor) of such property.