The current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter – the CCrP of Ukraine) in its Part 1 of Article 255 provides that the information, things and documents which are obtained as a result of covert investigative (detective) actions and which prosecutor does not recognize as necessary for further pre-trial investigation should be promptly destroyed based on the prosecutor’s decision, except for cases prescribed by Part Three of the said Article and Article 256 of the CCrP of Ukraine. At the same time, Part 2, Art. 290 of the CCrP provides that prosecutor or investigator, on the former’s instructions, should open the access to pre-trial investigation materials available to him/ her, including any evidence which, if taken separately or jointly with other evidence, may be used to prove the innocence, mitigate the extent of guilt of the accused or help mitigate the punishment. In this context, a number of questions arise: what is necessary and what is not, and whether this is for the purpose of conducting pre-trial investigation only or also for ensuring the right of the defense to enjoy sufficient opportunities to prepare defense, in the context of cl.b, Part 3, Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and also whether prosecutor may assess such a need appropriately with due regard for the principles of equality of arms and proportionality, which, undoubtedly, should be complied with. The purpose of the article is to develop the conceptual lines for improving the statutory regulation of the defense’s access to the results of covert investigative (detective) actions in the context of proportionality of public and private interests in criminal proceedings. Following the research conducted, the authors further substantiate that the regulatory framework provided for by Part 1, Article 255 is inconsistent with Part 2, Article 290 of the CCrP of Ukraine, and also that the provisions of Part 1 and 2 of Article 255 of Ukraine’s CCrP do not ensure an appropriate mechanism of balance-keeping between public interest to investigate a criminal offense and keep secret the information about special operations, and the interest of the suspect to enjoy sufficient opportunities for defense. Based on the research findings, it is proposed to amend Part 1 of Article 255 and Part 5 of Article 290 of Ukraine’s CCrP. Such amendments, if adopted, would eliminate the conflicts currently present in legislation regarding covert investigative (detective) actions and access to their results, and would guarantee compliance with the fundamental principles of criminal proceedings, and also would facilitate the harmonization of national legislation with the European standards.

List of legal documents 
 

Legislation 
1. Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental F reedoms] vid 04.11.1950 URL: http:// zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004 (accessed: 12.07.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
2. Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy [The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [the Law of Ukraine] vid 13 kvitnia 2012 r. № 4651-VI URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17 (accessed: 12.07.2018) (in Ukrainian). 

Cases 
3. Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom App no 8225/78 (ECHR, 28 May.1985) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
4. Bannikova v. Russia App no 18757/06 (ECHR, 04 November 2010) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
5. Beraru v. Romania App no 40107/04 (ECHR, 18 April 2014) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
6. C.G.P. v. the Netherlands App no 29835/96 (ECHR, 15 January 1997) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
7. Doorson v. the Netherlands App no 20524/92 (ECHR, 26 March 1996) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
8. Dowsett v. the United Kingdom App no 39482/98 (ECHR, 24 June 2003) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
9. Jespers v. Belgium App no 8403/78 (ECHR 15 October 1980) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
10. Mirilashvili v. Russia App no 6293/04 (ECHR, 11 December 2008 accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
11. Natunen v. Finland App no 21022/04 (ECHR, 31 March 2009) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
12. Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom App no 28901/95 (ECHR, 16 February 2000) accessed: 12.08.2018 (in English). 
 

Bibliography 
 

Edited books 
13. Marchenko T, ‘Deiaki aspekty realizatsii prava pidozriuvanoho maty chas ta mozhlyvosti, neobkhidni dlia pidhotovky svoho zakhystu v Ukraini’ v Yu Alenin (red) Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks 2012 roku: ideolohiia ta praktyka pravozastosuvannia: kolektyvna monohrafiia [‘Some Aspects of the Exercise of the Suspect’s Right to Enjoy the Time and Opportunities Necessary to Prepare His/Her Defense in Ukraine’ in Yu Alenin (ed.) The Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012: Ideology and Practice of Law Administration: a Collective Monograph] (Odesa, Vydavnychyi dim “Helvetyka”, 2018) 1148 s. (in Ukrainian). 

Journal articles 
14. Serhieieva D, ‘Rezultaty nehlasnykh slidchykh (rozshukovykh) dii: problemni aspekty vyznachennia’ [‘Results of Covert Investigative (Detective) Actions: Problematic Aspects of Definition’] (2014) Pravo i hromadianske suspilstvo №1 97-106 (in Ukrainian). 
15. Yudkivska H, ‘Pryntsyp proportsiinosti v systemi zakhystu prav liudyny’ [‘Principle of Proportionality in the System of Human Rights Protection’] (2015) Slovo Natsionalnoi shkoly suddiv Ukrainy №4 (13) 118-23 (in Ukrainian). 

Conference papers 
16. Hloviuk ‘Problemni pytannia zastosuvannia polozhen statti 255 KPK Ukrainy u konteksti praktyky YeSPL’ [‘Problematic Issues of Applying the Provisions of Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine in the Context of the ECHR Case Law’], Protydiia orhanizovanii zlochynnii diialnosti : materialy vseukrainskoi nauk.-prakt. internet-konf. [Combating Organized Criminal Activities: Materials of the All-Ukrainian Scientific and Practical Internet Conference] (vydavets Bukaiev Vadym Viktorovych m Odesa, 30 ber. 2018) 27-31. (in Ukrainian). 

Websites, blogs 
17. Drozdov O ta Drozdova O, ‘Rishennia “Matanovich proty Khorvatii” (Zaiava № 2742/12)’ [‘Matanovic v. Croatia Judgment App no 2742/12’] data zvernen nia 30 serpnia 2018 (in Ukrainian). 
18. Propozytsii KMIeS shchodo vnesennia zmin do Kryminalnoho protsesualnoho kodeksu [EUAM’S Proposals on Amending the Code of Criminal Procedure], S. 42-4. data zvernennia 30 serpnia 2018 (in Ukrainian).