Criminal proceedings upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances should be conducted under such principles as res judicata, non bis in idem, with due regard for the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court. Ongoing updates to criminal procedure laws with regard to the represented extraordinary form of judicial proceedings for revision of court decisions give rise to the need for respective theoretical comprehension. The article is aimed at providing a general theoretical description of the legal nature of the proceedings upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances in criminal process from the perspective of the European human rights standards. This article is one of the first general theoretical research papers focused on the updated criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine regulating the judicial proceedings upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances which describes certain essential features of these proceedings using modern methods of cognition, with due regard for the latest achievements in the science of criminal process and also from the perspective of the European standards. Judicial proceedings upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances are classified as extraordinary because the review of court decisions requires adherence to the principle of res judicata. With a view to complying with the principle of res judicata, it seems reasonable that the right to apply for the review of a court decision, which is adopted by a court of any instance and becomes fully binding and effective, upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances should be granted only to the parties of the criminal proceedings and to the victim, his/her counsel and legal representative, and a representative of the legal entity which the proceedings affect. The civil claimant, his/her counsel and legal representative, and civil defendant and his counsel should be entitled to file the said application only with regard to the civil claim. It is noted that due process of law should be established by law of criminal procedure. This may be regarded as available if there are laws of appropriate quality and relevant case law (international and national), and provided that the imperfections of laws with inappropriate quality are, so to say, adjusted by high-quality case law. And, visa versa, due process of law should be regarded as unavailable if there are no laws of appropriate quality and relevant case law or when provisions of laws of appropriate quality are not supported by the unity and consistency of case law. For the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court as a body intended to ensure uniform administration of law by courts, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should establish due process of law for reviewing of final court decisions which are adopted during pre-trial investigation and enter into force in the course of the proceedings. To mitigate the risk of non-observance of the principle non bis in idem, the legislator should incorporate into this process a number of restrictions relating not only to the scope of circumstances but also to the scope of requirements to the application for review of a court decision upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances etc.

List of legal docume nts 

 

Legislation 
1. Ugolovno-processualnyj kodeks Respubliki Kazahstan [The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan] ot 4 ijulja 2014 g. № 231-V (s izmenenijami i dopolne nijami po sostojaniju na 28 dekabrja 2017 g.). URL: https://online.zakon.kz/ Document/?doc_id=31575852&doc_id2=31575852#activate_doc=2&pos=552;0&pos2 =6072;60 (accessed: 03.01.2018) (in Russian). 

Cases 
2. Rishennja Jevropejsjkogho sudu z prav ljudyny u spravi “Ponomarjov proty Ukrajiny” [Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of April 3, 2008 “Ponomariov vs. Ukraine”] vid 3 kvitnja 2008 r. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/974_434/print (accessed: 11.12.2017) (in Ukrainian). 
3. Rishennja Konstytucijnogho Sudu Ukrajiny u spravi za konstytucijnym podannjam Verkhovnogho Sudu Ukrajiny shhodo vidpovidnosti Konstytuciji Ukrajiny (konstytucijnosti) polozhenj chastyny tretjoji statti 120, chastyny shostoji statti 234, chastyny tretjoji statti 236 Kryminaljno-procesualjnogho kodeksu Ukrajiny (sprava pro rozghljad sudom okremykh postanov slidchogho i prokurora) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the Case Following the Constitutional Petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine Concerning Compliance of Provisions of Part Three of Article 120, Part Six of Article 234 and Part Three of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the Constitution of Ukraine (Constitutionality) (Case on Consideration by Court of Some Investigator’s and Public Prosecutor’s Orders)] vid 30 sichnja 2003 r. № 3-rp/2003. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v003p710-03 (accessed: 10.12.2017) (in Ukrainian). 
4. Rishennja Konstytucijnogho Sudu Ukrajiny u spravi za konstytucijnym podannjam 49 narodnykh deputativ Ukrajiny shhodo vidpovidnosti Konstytuciji Ukrajiny (konstytucijnosti) punktu 7 chastyny drughoji statti 42 Zakonu Ukrajiny “Pro vyshhu osvitu” [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the Case Following the Constitutional Petition of 49 People’s Deputies of Ukraine Concerning Compliance of Clause 7, Part Two, Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine “On Higher Education” with the Constitution of Ukraine (Constitutionality)] vid 20 ghrudnja 2017 r. № 2-r/2017. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v002p710-17 (accessed: 25.12.2017) (in Ukrainian). 
5. Ukhvala koleghiji suddiv sudovoji palaty z rozghljadu kryminaljnykh sprav ta sprav pro administratyvni pravoporushennja Apeljacijnogho sudu Donecjkoji oblasti v misti Bakhmuti [Ruling of the Panel of Judges of the Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases and Administrative Offence Cases of the Donetsk Region Court of Appeal in Bakhmut Town] vid 28 ghrudnja 2017 r. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/71322954 (accessed: 06.01.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
6. Ukhvala slidchogho suddi Pechersjkogho rajonnogho sudu mista Kyjeva [Ruling of the Investigating Judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv] vid 3 sichnja 2018 r. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/71419322 (accessed: 06.01.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
7. Ukhvala Verkhovnogho Sudu u skladi koleghiji suddiv kasacijnogho kryminaljnogho sudu drughoji palaty [Ruling of the Supreme Court as a Member of the Panel of Judges of the Criminal Cassation Court, Second Chamber] vid 27 ghrudnja 2017 r. u provadzhenni 
№ 51-17zno17. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/71359171 (accessed: 
05.01.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
 

Bibliography 
 

Authored books 
8. Kogamov M, Kommentarij k ugolovno-processualnomu kodeksu Respubliki Kazahstan 2014 goda, t 2 [Commentary to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2014] (Zhetі Zhargy 2015) (in Russian). 
9. Holovaty S, Mirylo pravovdaddja [The Benchmark of the Rule of Law] (Rada Jevropy 2017) accessed 11 Decem ber 2017 (in Ukrainian). 
10. Trofymenko V, Teoretychni ta pravovi osnovy dyferenciaciji procesualjnoji formy u kryminaljnomu sudochynstvi [Theoretical and Legal Bases of Procedural Form Differentiation in Criminal Proceedings] (Oberigh 2016) (in Ukrainian). 

Edited books 
11. Drozdov O, ‘Provadzhennja za novovyjavlenymy obstavynamy’ [‘Proceedings upon Discovery of New Circumstances’] v Tacij V (red), Kryminaljnyj Proces [Criminal Process] (Pravo 2013) (in Ukrainian). 
12. Shevchuk C, ‘Pryncyp pravovoji vyznachenosti’, t 3 [‘Principle of Legal Certainty’] v Petryshyn O (red), Zaghaljna teorija prava [General Theory of Law] (Pravo 2016) (in Ukrainian). 

Translated books 
13. ‘Vysnovok Konsuljtatyvnoji rady jevropejsjkykh suddiv № 20 (2017) pro rolj sudiv u zabezpechenni jednosti zastosuvannja zakonu vid 10 lystopada 2017 r.’ [‘Opinion of the Advisory Council of European Judges № 20 (2017) on the Role of Courts in Ensuring the Unity of Law Administration of November 10, 2017’] (Strasburgh 2017) accessed 12 December 2017 (in Ukrainian). 
14. Shreder F-K and Ferrel T, Ugolovno-processualnoe pravo Germanii [Criminal Procedure Law of Germany] = Srafprozessrecht, Shreder F-K (tr) (5-e izd, Infotropik Media 2016) 241-2 (in Russian). 

Articles 
15. ‘Dopovidj, skhvalena Venecijsjkoju Komisijeju Rady Jevropy na 86-mu plenarnomu zasidanni (Venecija, 25–26 bereznja 2011 roku) “Verkhovenstvo prava”’ [‘Report Approved by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe at the 86th Plenary Session (Venice, March 25–26, 2011) “Rule of Law”’] (2011) 10 Pravo Ukrajiny 179 (in Ukrainian). 
16. Drozdov O, ‘Problemy pereghljadu sudovykh rishenj v porjadku vykljuchnogho provadzhennja’ [‘Issues of Court Decision Review in the Exceptional Proceedings’] (2010) 8 Visnyk Verkhovnogho Sudu Ukrajiny 21 (in Ukrainian). 
17. – – ‘Aktualjni problemy realizaciji okremykh zasad kryminaljnogho procesu v Provadzhenni za novovyjavlenymy obstavynamy’ [‘Topical Issues Relating to Implementation of Some Principles of Criminal Process in the Proceedings upon Discovery of New Circumstances’] (2014) 2 Visnyk Nacionaljnoji akademiji pravovykh nauk Ukrajiny 156 (in Ukrainian). 
18. – – ‘Non bis in idem – jevropejsjkyj orijentyr dlja zabezpechennja stalosti ta jednosti sudovoji praktyky Verkhovnym Sudom (za materialamy praktyky Jevropejsjkogho sudu z prav ljudyny)’ [‘Non bis in idem – the European Benchmark to Ensure the Consistency and Unity of Judicial Practice by the Supreme Court (Based on Materials of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’)] (2017) 1 Pravo Ukrajiny 129 (in Ukrainian). 
19. – – ‘Suchasni tendenciji rozvytku kryminaljnogho procesu Ukrajiny (za materialamy praktyky Jevropejsjkogho sudu z prav ljudyny)’ [‘Modern Development Trends in the Criminal Process of Ukraine (Based on Materials of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights)’] (2017) 12 Pravo Ukrajiny 102 (in Ukrainian).