The current Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine) provides that the tasks of criminal proceedings should be implemented only via active behavior of participants in the criminal proceedings. Such active behavior is primarily expected from authorized participants to criminal procedural relations, including public prosecutor. However, with the aim of exercising respective powers, public prosecutor may only do what is expressly provided for in the law of criminal procedure. Thus, the legislator has an important duty to clearly prescribe all possible procedures throughout the entire criminal process. However, practice shows that there is no common interpretation of some provisions of CPC of Ukraine among scholars and practitioners, and this makes the process of law application more complicated. And last but not least, this heterogeneity of CPC of Ukraine application is linked to the process of completion of pre-trial investigation.

The purpose of the article is to determine the legal status of public prosecutor at the end of pre-trial investigation, at the same time highlighting the shortcomings of current criminal procedure legislation and proposing amendments to the relevant provisions of CPC of Ukraine.

The study of article 291 of CPC of Ukraine with regard to instructions for making an indictment has established that the legislator empowers authorized persons at own discretion to choose their behavior with regard to making an indictment: it can be made either by investigator or by public prosecutor. In this case, the word “particularly” refers merely to an example of a situation in which public prosecutor can independently make an indictment. In other words, CPC of Ukraine does not contain an exhaustive list of cases where an indictment may be made by public prosecutor and not by investigator.

The author has established that an indictment is a procedural decision and, therefore, the process of making an indictment (the process of its drafting and approval) can only occur via implementation of a relevant procedural action. At the same time, when formulating the powers of public prosecutor, the legislator distinguishes between “procedural actions” and “making of procedural decisions”.

Based on the interpretation of provisions of clauses 4, 5, 9 of article 36 of CPC of Ukraine in the system connection with article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine which provides that public authorities and local self-government bodies, and their officials should act only on the bases, within the scope of powers and in the manner provided for by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, the author comes to the conclusion that article 36 of CPC of Ukraine does not directly empower public prosecutor to give instructions in respect of making procedural decisions.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Grigor’ev V i Pobedkin A i Jashin V, Ugolovnyj process: uchebnik [Criminal Process: Textbook] (Jeksmo 2005) (in Russian).

2. Torbas O, Formy zakinchennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia za Kryminalnym protsesualnym kodeksom Ukrainy: monohrafiia [Forms of Ending a Pre-Trial Investigation Under the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: Monograph] (Yurydychna literatura 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

3. Alenin Yu (zah red), Kryminalno-protsesualne pravo Ukrainy: pidruchnyk [Criminal Procedure Law of Ukraine: Textbook] (Odiscei 2009) (in Ukrainian).

4.Tatsii V ta inshi (red), Kryminalnyi protses: pidruchnyk [Criminal Process: Textbook] (Pravo 2013) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

 5. Hlobenko H, ‘Okremi pytannia protsesualnoho poriadku zakinchennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia’ [‘Some Issues of Procedure for Completing a Pre-Trial Investigation’] (2016) 4 Pravo i Bezpeka 60–4 (in Ukrainian).

6. Hloviuk I and Ponomarenko D, ‘Prohnozovani problemy zastosuvannia zakonodavstva pro kryminalni prostupky’ [‘Predicted Problems of Applying the Law on Criminal Offenses’] (2019) Biuleten AAU 10–2 (in Ukrainian).

7. Kaplina O, ‘Problemy vyznachennia kompetentsii slidchoho ta prokurora na etapi zakinchennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia’ [‘Problems of Determining the Competence of the Investigator and the Prosecutor at the Stage of Completion Pre-Trial Investigation’] (2018) 8 Pravo Ukrainy 72–84 (in Ukrainian).

8. Khrushch O, ‘Protsesualna diialnist prokurora pid chas zakryttia kryminalnoho provadzhennia’ [‘Prosecutor’s Activity During Closing of Criminal Proceedings’] (2017) 3 Naukovyi chasopys Natsionalnoi akademii prokuratury Ukrainy 155–63 (in Ukrainian).

9. Maihur M, ‘Obvynuvalnyi vysnovok: teoretychni ta praktychni pytannia’ [‘Indictment: Theoretical and Practical Issues’’] (2011) 1 Visnyk Akademii advokatury Ukrainy 113–9 (in Ukrainian).

10. Sysoienko H, ‘Zakinchennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia’ [‘End of Pre-Trial Investigation’] (2015) 12 Visnyk Akademii advokatury Ukrainy 145–53 (in Ukrainian).

Websites, blogs

11. Ivanets A, ‘“The show must go on”, abo chomu zakinchennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia ne zavzhdy ye ostatochnym’ (2019) [“The Show Must Go On”, or Why the Conclusion of a Pre-Trial Investigation is not Always Final] (Yurydychna hazeta) <http://yur-gazeta. com/publications/practice/kriminalne-pravo-ta-proces/the-show-must-go-on-abochomuzakinchennya-dosudovogo-rozsliduvannya-ne-zavzhdi-e-ostatochnim.html> (accessed: 11.02.2020).

12. Borys S, ‘Vstanovlennia slidchym suddeiu strokiv dlia zavershennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia – neprypustyme vtruchannia?’ [‘Setting a time limit for completing a Pre-Trial Investigation by Investigating Judge – Unacceptable Interference?’] (Zakon i Biznes) <https://zib.com.ua/ua/136423-vstanovlennya_slidchim_suddeyu_strokiv_ dlya_zavershennya_dos.html> (accessed: 11.02.2020). 13. Ponomarenko D, ‘Povernennia obvynuvalnoho akta. Pidstavy ta protsesualne znachennia’ [‘Return of Indictment. Grounds and Procedural Value’] (Liga.Blog, 10.03.2016) <https://blog.liga.net/user/ponomarenko/article/21285> (accessed: 11.02.2020).