Доказування необхідності застосування арешту майна цивільним позивачем

Abstract

Розглянуто питання доказування необхідності застосування арешту майна у діяльності цивільного позивача, зокрема питання обґрунтування клопотання цивільного позивача; локальний предмет доказування. З метою реалізації права цивільного позивача на арешт майна для забезпечення відшкодування шкоди, завданої внаслідок кримінального правопорушення (цивільний позов), потрібно: 1) забезпечити беззаперечну реалізацію вимог ст. 221 КПК України у строк, який дає змогу цивільному позивачу оперативно підготувати клопотання; 2) прямо передбачити заборону повернення клопотання цивільному позивачу; 3) передбачити повноваження слідчого судді витребувати копії всіх необхідних матеріалів кримінального провадження для розгляду клопотання та кореспондуючий обов’язок сторони обвинувачення їх оперативно надати. The article deals with the issue of proving the necessity of property seize applying by a plaintiff, in particular, the issue of substantiate petition of a plaintiff, as well as the local topic of proving. The purpose of the article is the discovery of the problematic issues of the implementation of plaintiff’s right on property seize with the aim of providing reparation, caused by criminal misdemeanor (civil case) in the part of proving – substantiate of petition concerning property seize, that is sued to an investigating judge, a court, and formulation of suggestion on elimination the issue of realization of such a right. The main achievements of the research are based on substantiation of the fact that there will not be any restitution of a petition to a plaintiff and it must include: 1) reasons, objectives and appropriate justifcation of the necessity for property seize; 2) enumeration and types of property, that must be seized; 3) documents, that confrm the right on property, that must be seized or particular facts and proofs, that suspected or accused, convicted or legal entity, that commit an offence and can confrm ownership, applying and disposal of the property; 4) data of suing the civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings; 5) rate of damage, caused by criminal case; 6) rate of requirements of petition; 7) proofs of the fact of damage cause and rate of the damage. The original materials of a petition as well as copies of the documents must be provided in order to which a plaintiff proves his petition. For a plaintiff the mentioned above requirements are complicated for fulfll. In a case when documents proving the property seize are in material case, it is possible to achieve their copies though the mechanism, provided by art. 221 of the CPC of Ukraine. In other cases, a plaintiff, that is a victim has the same opportunities to collect material as a plaintiff, whose rights are limited. Concerning the fact, that a victim has no right on permanent access to the property and documents and involving an expert, that without any doubt limit his opportunities for proving rate of damage and the necessity of property seize. Besides, there are some risks: possible concealment, damage, deterioration, destruction, transformation, alienation of property – a plaintiff literary will not be able to substantiate, concerning the fact, that he does not possess all the information related to persons behavior, whose property can be seized. In conclusion, it should be said, that purpose to substantiate such risks without information, that prosecuting party available of is little achievable. Author’s conclusions and specifc suggestions are: for the realization of the right of a plaintiff on property seize on providing reparation, caused by criminal misdemeanor (civil lawsuit), there is the necessity to develop an effective legal mechanism, that will provide such a right. Applying of the simplifcation of the requirements to the petition have not been effectively achieved as well as local topic of proving and requirements of decision of court have not been changed. Thus, there is a necessity, frstly, provide undeniable realization of requirement art. 221 CPC of Ukraine in time, that allows a plaintiff to prepare a petition in time; secondly, predict direct objection of petition restitution to the plaintiff; thirdly, predict an investigator judge authority to demand copies of all necessary materials of criminal case for trying the petition and corresponding duty of the prosecution party to give them operatively.