Забезпечення права на справедливий суд під час розгляду кримінального провадження за відсутності обвинуваченого (in absentia)

Abstract

Стаття присвячена дослідженню питання розгляду кримінального провадження без обвинуваченого (in absentia), який перебуває на тимчасово окупованій території України. Досліджується питання відповідності запровадженого в ч. 8 ст. 135 КПК України способу судового виклику вимогам ст. 6 Конвенції. На прикладі судової практики Верховного Суду наводяться способи повідомлення обвинуваченого про наявне щодо нього кримінальне провадження. Зроблено висновок про не відповідність вимогам ст. 6 Конвенції вжитого державою заходу (ч. 8 ст. 135 КПК України) щодо повідомлення обвинуваченого, який перебуває на тимчасово окупованій території України та подальший розгляд кримінального провадження за відсутності обвинуваченого (in absentia). The article is devoted to the study of the issue of consideration of criminal proceedings without the accused, who is in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine. The issue of compliance of the method of summons introduced in Part 8 of Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention is investigated. Using the example of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court, the methods of notifying the accused of the criminal proceedings against him are given. The conclusion is made that the measure taken by the state (Part 8 of Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) regarding the notification of the accused, who is in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine and further consideration in absentia is not in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. The results of the study have been summed up. When deciding on the issue of considering criminal proceedings without the accused (in absentia), it is necessary to adhere to the following algorithm: establish the presence of charges brought against the person, in particular under Articles 111, 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; establish the location of the accused in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine; summon the accused to court by publishing summonses in the mass media of nationwide distribution and on the official website of the Prosecutor General’s Office; verify the presence of evidence in the case confirming the accused’s awareness of the criminal proceedings against him; establish the fact of the accused’s evasion of appearing in court (failure to appear at the court summons more than twice). 2) The measure taken by the state, enshrined in Part 8 of Article 135, Part 5 of Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, which allows summoning the accused to a court session only by placing summons in the mass media of nationwide distribution and on the official website of the Prosecutor General’s Office, does not confirm the accused’s awareness of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, it is not an effective measure because it does not achieve the result specified in Art. 6 of the Convention, namely, that the accused has waived his rights to be present at the court session and to defend himself independently. In such a case, consideration of the case without the accused (in absentia) is a violation of Art. 6 of the Convention and may lead to the Court’s recovery of just satisfaction from the state, which, in my opinion, is inadmissible. When deciding on the issue of considering a case in the order of special court proceedings, special attention should be paid by the courts to verifying the proper notification of the accused about the criminal proceedings against him. Evidence of the accused’s knowledge may be any evidence that directly confirms the specified circumstance, namely: witness statements, sending summonses to the court to the accused to: his personal email, email of his place of work; to the messenger at the phone number used by the accused; publication in the mass media of the accused’s expression of opinion regarding the accusation against him, etc.