This article analyzes the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regulating the procedure for disclosing materials to the opposing party. As shown by the analysis of the CPC of Ukraine, the case law of the Supreme Court, and scholarly legal literature, certain aspects of disclosure raise challenges in interpretation and practical application. These difficulties result in the inconsistent application of Article 290 of the CPC of Ukraine by criminal justice actors, restriction of the fundamental principles of criminal procedure, violations of participants’ rights, and the inability of courts to admit information contained in the parties’ materials as evidence. It is established that these issues stem from misinterpretation of Article 290 of the CPC, the dynamic evolution of the Supreme Court’s legal positions, deficiencies in legal drafting, and legislative gaps in the procedural regulation mechanism. Identifying these shortcomings provides an opportunity to align domestic legislation with international standards. The article examines problematic and controversial issues arising in practice, including the prosecution’s notification to the defense regarding the completion of the pre-trial investigation and granting access to materials under Article 290 of the CPC of Ukraine; the determination of the point at which familiarization with the materials is deemed completed; and the prosecution’s conduct of investigative (search) actions after the disclosure of pre-trial investigation materials. Attention is drawn to the shortcomings of the current legal regulation, and arguments are provided in favor of amending the CPC of Ukraine to clearly define the moment of completion of familiarization with materials under Article 290. It is emphasized that access to pre-trial investigation materials under Article 290 is intended exclusively to ensure proper preparation of the parties for trial.

Bibliography

Journal аrticles

1. Torbas O, ‘Problematyka vstanovlennia momentu oznaiomlennia z materialamy dosudovoho rozsliduvannia vidpovidno do st. 290 KPK Ukrainy’ [2021] 15 Pravovi novely 88 (in Ukrainian).

2. Shevchuk M, ‘Obsiah materialiv dosudovoho rozsliduvannia, yaki povynna vidkryvaty storona obvynuvachennia na zavershalnomu yoho etapi: analiz praktyky KKS VS ta YeSPL’ [2025] 36(75)2 Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V. I. Vernadskoho. Seriia: Yurydychni nauky 107–116 (in Ukrainian). Conference papers

3. Pashkovskyi M, Hloviuk I, ‘Strok oznaiomlennia z materialamy dosudovoho rozsliduvannia storonamy kryminalnoho provadzhennia ta strok dosudovoho rozsliduvannia: problemy koreliatsii’, Aktualni problemy kryminalnoho prava, protsesu, kryminalistyky ta operatyvno- rozshukovoi diialnosti: tezy III Vseukraiskoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii, m. Khmelnytskyi, 1 bereznia 2019 r. (Vyd-vo NADPSU 2019) 33–38 (in Ukrainian).

4. Shevchuk M, ‘Problemy vyznachennia momentu zakinchennia oznaiomlennia z materialamy v poriadku, peredbachenomu st. 290 KPK Ukrainy’, Teoretyko-prykladni problemy yurydychnoi nauky na suchasnomu etapi reformuvannia kryminalnoi yustytsii: zbirnyk tez Mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii (m. Khmelnytskyi, 30 travnia 2025 roku) (Khmelnytskyi universytet upravlinnia ta prava imeni Leonida Yuzkova 2025) 171–173 (in Ukrainian). Theses

5. Vakoliuk Yu, ‘Vidkryttia materialiv inshii storoni v kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy’ (dys dokt filosofii, 2025) (in Ukrainian). Newspaper articles

6. Mykhaylenko V, ‘Zavershennia i zakinchennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia: hra sliv chy rizni etapy dosudovoho rozsliduvannia’ (Iurydychna hazeta 14.04.2020) (accessed 27.09.2025) (in Ukrainian). Websites

7. Antoniuk N, ‘Stroky dosudovoho rozsliduvannia: aktualna sudova praktyka VS’ (01 liutoho 2023) (accessed 27.09.2025) (in Ukrainian).

8. Ivanets A, ‘“Zavershennia” ta “zakinchennia” dosudovoho rozsliduvannia u kryminalnomu protsesi: chy ye riznytsia?’ (15.08.2022) (accessed 27.09.2025) (in Ukrainian).