Criminal procedural policy of the European Union and its individual member states regarding suspension from office in criminal proceedings

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the criminal procedural policy of the European Union and its selected Member States — France, Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands – regarding suspension from office during criminal proceedings. The study identifies five systemic deficiencies in the Ukrainian regulation of this coercive measure under Chapter 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (Articles 154–158), including the extra-judicial procedure for officials appointed by the President, the absence of a compensation mechanism, and the lack of differentiation based on professional status.
The analysis of EU standards focuses on Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the presumption of innocence, Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on the mutual recognition of supervision measures, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The comparative study reveals that the French model requires a cumulative test linking the alleged offence to professional activity and demonstrating the risk of reoffending. German law conditions the provisional occupational ban on a prognosis that the final sentence will include such a prohibition, with mandatory credit towards the sentence. Polish law permits prosecutorial imposition without prior judicial authorization, while Dutch law integrates professional restrictions into the general system of pre-trial detention suspension conditions.
The study formulates seven specific proposals for reforming Ukrainian criminal procedural policy, including the elimination of extra-judicial suspension procedures, the introduction of cumulative grounds modelled on French law, special procedures for regulated professions, and the crediting of suspension periods towards sentencing.