Конкуренція між нереабілітуючими підставами закриття кримінального провадження (припинення кримінального переслідування)

Abstract

Проаналізовано ситуації, за яких у кримінальному провадженні вбачаються ознаки одразу декількох нереабілітуючих підстав його закриття (або припинення кримінального переслідування). Запропоновано критерії визначення найбільш м’якої, «пільгової» для підозрюваного, обвинуваченого норми, на підставі якої допустиме закриття кримінального провадження (припинення кримінального переслідування). Various grounds for criminal proceedings closing proper delineation (termination of criminal prosecution) and competition overcoming are practically important. It should be understood as correlation of norms, diverse for content in regulating a specifc situation, but the preference should be given to one of them because of its targeting. The difference among the majority of grounds for criminal proceedings closing (termination of criminal prosecution) is quite obvious. At the same time, the problem of competition of non-rehabilitating grounds for criminal proceedings closing (termination of criminal prosecution) often arises in practice. Recommendations for determining of the most lenient norm, which is the admissible ground for criminal proceedings closing (termination of criminal prosecution) are elucidated in the article. It is justifed that the following conditions should be considered: 1) whether any negative legal consequences for the person will arise in the future (in particular, whether the possibility of his/her criminal prosecution, the application of other legal influence instruments will remain); 2) whether such a ground results in criminal proceedings closing (termination of criminal prosecution) only, or excludes this proceedings at all (it may also result in refusal to initiate this proceedings); 3) whether making the decision to close the criminal proceedings (to terminate the criminal prosecution) is obligatory for the law enforcer or not (imperative or discretional grounds); 4) what extent (broader or, conversely, more narrow) the criminal acts and the persons who have committed them, is foreseen by this ground; 5) how complicated is the procedure of criminal proceedings closing or criminal prosecution terminating (in particular whether the consent of the suspect/accused and/or the victim is required); 6) what (more or less strict) conditions have been set for criminal proceedings closing (termination of criminal prosecution), while all other conditions are equal.