НЕВІДКЛАДНИЙ ОБШУК: У ПОШУКАХ БАЛАНСУ МІЖ ЕФЕКТИВНІСТЮ ТА ДОТРИМАННЯМ ПРАВ ЛЮДИНИ

It is indicated that in the early days of June 2024, the judges of the Supreme Court appealed to the members of the Scientific Advisory Council with a request to provide scientific conclusions regarding case No. 466/525/22 (the case concerned the application of the provisions of Part 3 of Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code). It emerged from the appeal that the criminal proceedings based on the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the decision of the Lviv Court of Appeals dated Octobe 2, 2023 were referred to the joint chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court. In this scientific publication, the authors attempted to examine the situation that arises during searches in emergency cases within the framework of the problem of prioritizing the protection of human rights. It is argued that given the legal nature and content of the above constitutional provisions, it should be concluded that part three of Article 30 of the Basic Law of Ukraine should be interpreted as a direct effect provision. This means that it prevents a participant in criminal proceedings on the side of the prosecution (prosecutor, investigator, inquirer) from making a decision to enter a person's home or other property unless the case is urgent and the purpose does not comply with the provisions of the said provision of the Constitution of Ukraine, taking into account an individual assessment of the circumstances of a particular case. It is summarized that in the absence of a clear definition of the term «urgent» in the criminal procedure legislation, it is advisable to apply the principle of in dubio pro tributario (priority with the most favorable interpretation of the rule of law)). Given that we are talking about an exceptional case of restriction of the constitutional right to inviolability of the home outside of judicial control, it is important to apply a literal (not extended) interpretation of the content of part three of Article 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Therefore, the authorized participants in criminal proceedings, when deciding on an urgent search, are obliged to find out whether the delay during the reasonably foreseeable time required to apply to the investigating judge, obtain a search warrant and conduct it in the normal course of events will inevitably lead to the consequences provided for in Article 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine; what specific circumstances of the case indicate the urgency of the entry into the home or other property, which must be in direct causal connection with the loss (destruction, etc.) of property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]