Duplicative request on the extension of the term of pre-trial investigation

It seems that NABU and SAPO brought out from the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine an unexisting animal in the Kobolyev case —

Duplicative request on the extension of the term of pre-trial investigation.

As you know, the investigative judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court refused NABU-SAPO to extend the terms of the pre-trial investigation of Andriy Kobolyev’s case (we wrote about it in detail here. According to the Criminal Procedure Cod, this decision cannot be appealed.

However, immediately after the meeting, NABU handed Kobolyev a new petition to extend the period of pre-trial investigation in the same criminal proceedings.

The court will consider this new request. We also decided to consider this request and gathered an absentee symposium of lawyers for this purpose. Below are their very brief comments on the subject.

1Has it ever happened in your practice that the prosecution tried to extend the term of the pre-trial investigation, despite the existing refusal of the investigating judge?

Katya Hupalo, “Arzinger”

I can’t speak for all law enforcement across the country, but this is the first case I know of where, after being denied an extension of the term, the prosecution is re-applying the same issue to the investigating judge.

The judge, who asked to remain anonymous

No, these questions do not reach us, they are not a royal matter.

Nazar Kulchytskyi, “Nazar Kulchytskyi and Partners”

I had one case when the court refused to extend the term and the prosecutor extended it. In the remaining cases, they singled out the actual case, stopped the main one and did something in the actual case, then combined the materials.

Zlata Symonenko, “Sayenko Kharenko”

It happened, the investigating judge repeatedly refused and very directly hinted to the prosecutor to stop such further procedural actions.

Yevhen Hroshovets, Ario Law Firm

No.

2What can you say (in a few words) about the efforts of NABU-SAPO to introduce such a practice at the High Anti-Corruption Court?

Katya Hupalo

Most likely, the prosecution will pretend that everything is fine, and the law is not prohibited. But this is not foreseen.

And now the question is: will the investigating judge “legalize” for them the opportunity to submit appropriate petitions until they get the desired result?

From a common sense perspective, judicial review has already taken place. The issue of extending the terms has already been submitted to the investigating judge, an assessment has been made and a decision has been made.

At the same time, I remember the situation with searches, when law enforcement officers went with petitions to different judges until they did not receive the necessary decision. And here again, it seems that such a right is not provided for anywhere in the Criminal Procedure Code, but there was no prohibition either.

It was possible to call it quits only with the introduction of a direct prohibition in the Criminal Procedure Code to submit a request for a search on the same grounds if the previous request was refused. At the same time, this excessive formalism is a forced measure. This is not how it should work with the state bodies. After all, no one has yet repealed Part 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution.

Judge

Stupidity and courage

Nazar Kulchytskyi

This is not something new, duplicative requests for property seizure, temporary access, and time limits under 290 are constantly being submitted.

Zlata Symonenko

This practice is contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code. There is a standard of reasonableness of the term, delays on both sides of their actions or decisions directly harm both parties, but especially the person suspected of committing a crime.

Yevhen Hrushovets

Goalpost.

Conflict of interest disclaimer:
Svitlana Panaiotidi is a member of the board of the Dead Lawyers Society, so we do not express the opinion of the editors but only collect the opinions of lawyers. The picture and the kicker, which may seem to you to be an “expression of opinion”, only reflect the position of the commentators. XOX.

✍️ Dima Gadomsky