Search

Despite numerous in-depth scientific works, we believe that the issue of disciplinary and criminal prosecution of medical workers needs further study in the light of legislative changes and law-making activities of the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of the article is to characterize the national legislation governing the disciplinary and criminal prosecution of medical workers. The article analyzes the national legislation governing criminal and disciplinary proceedings for medical offenses. It is established that the criminal legislation in the field of regulation of criminal liability for medical crimes needs to be improved, in particular Art. 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Based on the generalization of case law, it was concluded that there is no single approach to determining the objective side of this type of crime. This requirement is related to the need to avoid cases of unjustified criminal prosecution of medical workers, when criminal prosecution is carried out and only in court the truth in the case is established and an acquittal is passed. The study provided an opportunity to conclude that a disciplinary misdemeanor is an illegal culpable act or omission, which is expressed in non-performance or improper performance by the employee of duties and other requirements imposed on him under labor law, other special regulations, for which may be subject to disciplinary action. Like any offense, a disciplinary offense is characterized by a set of objective and subjective features, called the composition of the offense: the subject, the subjective side, the object, the objective side. Disciplinary liability of a medical worker is a separate type of legal liability that arises in the event of a disciplinary misconduct by a medical worker. Disciplinary liability of medical workers occurs not only for disciplinary misconduct, but also for violation of moral and ethical norms, as workers in this category must comply with the requirements of professional ethics, respect for honor and dignity of citizens (patients).

The article explores the issues of the victim’s involvement in the process of obtaining temporary access to things and documents. The current legislative provisions were analyzed, according to it only the parties to criminal proceedings have the right to appeal to the investigating judge during the pretrial investigation or the court during the court proceedings requesting temporary access to things and documents. It is established that when a victim is not a part of the criminal proceedings, he is not empowered to apply to the investigating judge with a request for temporary access to things and documents. However, the practice of applying the law evidences about application another one approach to the solution of this issue, in particular, the existing court decisions on granting the investigative judge permission to the victim to temporary access to things and documents. This practice has led the Supreme Court to find that there is a lack of clarity, uncertainty about the legal rules regarding the victim’s status and his rights in criminal proceedings, which constitutes an exclusive legal problem. In order to resolve this issue and to ensure the development of the law and the formation of a single law enforcement practice, the panel of judges concluded that it was necessary to refer the criminal proceedings to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. In order to resolve this problem and to ensure the development of law and the formation of a uniform law enforcement practice, the panel of judges concluded that it was necessary to refer criminal proceedings to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and to ask questions for clarification of the legislative provisions. On the basis of the generalized case law, it was concluded that there is no unity in approaches to granting the victim permission for temporary access to things and documents. It is concluded that the issues raised in the article are theoretical and practical issues of granting the victim permission for temporary access to things and documents which need their legislative solution.

The initial oxidation of a clean Ni3Al (210) surface was studied at 300 K using a supersonic O2 molecular beam (O2 SSMB) having an O2 translational energy of 2.3 eV, and real-time photoemission spectroscopy performed with high-brilliance synchrotron radiation. The evolution behaviors of the O 1s, Ni 2p, Al 2p, and Ni 3p spectra were examined during irradiation with the O2 SSMB. The spectral analysis revealed that both the Al atoms and the Ni atoms on the surface were oxidized; however, the oxidation of Al progressed much faster than that of Ni. The oxidation of Al began to occur and AlOx was formed at an oxygen coverage of 0.26 monolayer (ML) and saturated at an oxygen coverage of 2.5 ML. In contrast, the oxidation of Ni commenced a little late at an oxygen coverage of 1.6 ML and slowly progressed to saturation at an oxygen coverage of 4.89 ML.