The relevance of the topic under study ensues from the social importance of civil liability in criminal proceedings, and from the increasingly growing number of infringements of property and non-property human rights and unresolved systemic problems of theoretical, legislative and practical nature.

The purpose of the article is to study the outlined issues and to determine the ways of how they can be resolved with a view to improving current legislation and practice. The main method used for the study is the method of intersectoral analysis of systemic problems which this institute has.

The author makes a critical analysis of current legislation regarding the State’s liability for the damage caused by subjects of court procedure. The article highlights the specific features of structural elements of this liability: the grounds, subjects, mechanism, etc.

The author also shows the positive and negative aspects present where this damage is reimbursed, and expresses the author's positions concerning them. Furthermore, the author expresses doubts about the efficiency of recourse.

The conclusions made reflect the main results of the study. Thus, it is proposed to determine an integral concept of civil-law liability in criminal procedure, with its main components being as follows: its clear differentiation into institutes: 1) compensation of damage caused by unlawful acts (decisions, actions and omissions) of the subjects of criminal procedure (other types of proceedings) vested with power; 2) rehabilitation; 3) compensation of damage caused to an individual who was affected by a criminal offense; 4) civil lawsuit within criminal procedure; legislative definition of terminology, foundations, bases, subjects and the mechanism of how these institutions function, in separate chapters of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine or in separate laws; implementation of the principle of the State’s liability to an individual for the State’s activity, activities of governmental bodies and their officials according to the principle of complete and unconditional compensation of damage. The author believes that it would be reasonable to introduce a uniform legislative sectoral “general formula” of this constitutional obligation which would permit the grounds for release from compensation; unified procedures for damage compensation and an exclusively court procedure to be introduced for it. The administrative element in its procedures should be excluded; the obligation to initiate compensation of damage should be imposed on the subjects of court procedure vested with power. Victims should be given the right to file a lawsuit for damage compensation in any case where the fact of damage to them is revealed. Furthermore, the rights, obligations and liability of victims of offenses in criminal procedure should be clearly defined, and forensic examination should be recognized mandatory where there is a need to resolve issues pertaining to the type, nature and size of the damage; participation of a lawyer in the proceedings should also be recognized mandatory.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Nor V, Imushhestvennaja otvetstvennost’ za nepravil’nye dejstvija dolzhnostnyh lic [Liability for Misconduct by Officials] (Vishha shkola 1974) (in Russian).

2. Nor V, Zashhita imushhestvennyh prav v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Protection of Property Rights in Criminal Proceedings] (Vyshha shkola 1989) (in Russian).

3. Shershenevich H, Uchebnik russkogo grazhdanskogo prava [Textbook of Russian Civil Law] (SPARK 1995) (in Russian).

4. Shumylo M, Reabilitatsiia v kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy [Rehabilitation in the Criminal Process of Ukraine] (Arsis 2001) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

5. Agarkov M, ‘Cennost’ chastnogo prava’ [‘The Value of Private Law’] (1992) 1 Pravovedenie 31 (in Russian).

6. Bezlepkin B, ‘Novye garantii zakonnyh interesov reabilitirovannogo’ [‘New Guarantees of the Legitimate Interests of the Rehabilitated’] (1982) 6 Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo 62 (in Russian).

7. Bojcova V i Bojcova L, ‘Otvetstvennost’ gosudarstva za dejstvija dolzhnostnyh lic: publichno-pravovaja ili chastnopravovaja’ [‘Responsibility of the State for the Actions of Officials: Public Law or Private Law?’] (1993) 1 Pravovedenie 72 (in Russian).

8. Bojcova L, ‘Otvetstvennost’ gosudarstva i sudej za vred, prichinennyj grazhdanam pri otpravlenii pravosudija’ [‘Responsibility of the State and Judges for Harm Caused to Citizens in the Administration of Justice’] (2001) 9 Zhurnal rossijskogo prava 56 (in Russian).

9. Shargorodskij M, ‘Subekt dolzhnostnogo prestuplenija’ [‘Subject of Malfeasance’] (1928) 9 Vestnik sovetskoj justicii 264 (in Russian).

Thesis

10. Fedorova E, ‘Grazhdansko-pravovaja otvetstvennost’ za vred, prichinennyj aktami sudebnoj vlasti pri osushhestvlenii pravosudija’ [‘Civil Liability for Harm Caused by Acts of the Judiciary in the Administration of Justice’] (avtoref dis kand jurid nauk, 2013) (in Russian).

11. Kanzafarova I, ‘Teoretychni osnovy tsyvilno-pravovoi vidpovidalnosti v Ukraini’ [‘Theoretical Foundations of Civil Liability in Ukraine’] (avtoref dys d-ra yuryd nauk, 2007) (in Ukrainian).

12. Kaplina O, ‘Problemy reabilitatsii u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy’ [‘Problems of Rehabilitation in the Criminal Process of Ukraine’] (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 1998) (in Ukrainian).

13. Kun A, ‘Vozmeshhenie vreda, prichinennogo grazhdaninu aktami vlasti’ [‘Compensation for Damage Caused to a Citizen by Acts of Government’] (avtoref dis kand jurid nauk, 1984) (in Russian).

14. Mazur M, ‘Zakhyst prav ta zakonnykh interesiv reabilitovanykh u kryminalnomu protsesi’ [‘Protecting the Rights and Legitimate Interests of Those Rehabilitated in Criminal Proceedings‘] (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2012) (in Ukrainian).

15. Nizhynska I, ‘Vidshkoduvannia shkody, zavdanoi nezakonnymy diiamy sluzhbovykh osib diznannia i dosudovoho slidstva v systemi orhaniv vnutrishnikh sprav Ukrainy’ [‘Compensation for Damage Caused by Unlawful Actions of Officials of Inquiry and Pre-trial Investigation in the System of Law-Enforcement Bodies of Ukraine’] (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2003) (in Ukrainian).

16. Orlova A, ‘Koncepcija reabilitacii i organizacionno-pravovye mehanizmy ee realizacii v Rossijskom ugolovnom processe’ [‘Rehabilitation Concept and Organizational and Legal Mechanisms of its Implementation in the Russian Criminal Process’] (avtoref dis d-ra jurid nauk, 2013) (in Russian).

17. Paryshkura V, ‘Iurydychna vidpovidalnist suddiv v Ukraini ta krainakh Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu: porivnialno-pravovyi analiz’ [‘Legal Responsibility of Judges in Ukraine and the European Union: A Comparative Legal Analysis’] (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2017) (in Ukrainian).

18. Roshhin M, ‘Grazhdansko-pravovaja otvetstvennost’ za vred, prichinennyj sudebnosledstvennymi organami’ [‘Civil Liability for Damage Caused by Judicial Investigative Authorities’] (avtoref dis kand jurid nauk, 2005) (in Russian).

Dissertations

19. Zubrytskyi M, ‘Teoretyko-metodolohichni ta prykladni zasady pravovoho rehuliuvannia vidnosyn u sferi yurydychnoi vidpovidalnosti derzhavnykh sluzhbovtsiv v Ukraini’ [‘Theoretical, Methodological and Applied Principles of Legal Regulation of Relations in the Field of Legal responsibility of Civil Servants in Ukraine’] (dys d-ra yuryd nauk, 2019) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

20. ‘Derzhavna kaznacheiska sluzhba Ukrainy. Zvitnist. 2016. 2017. 2018’ [‘State Treasury Service of Ukraine. Reporting. 2016 2017 2018’] <https://www.treasury.gov.ua/ua/filestorage/vikonannya-derzhavnogo-byudzhetu> (accessed: 30.07.2019) (in Ukrainian).