Правове регулювання порядку попередніх домовленостей про ціноутворення в Україні

Abstract

У статті розглядається процесуальний статус судді Вищого антикорупційного суду як учасника кримінального провадження. Визначаються його функції у кримінальному провадженні. Аналізується чинне законодавство, його недоліки та надаються пропозиції щодо його вдосконалення.

In the article the procedural status of the judge of the Supreme anti-corruption court as participant of criminal proceeding is considered. Its functions in criminal proceeding are defi ned. The current legislation, its shortcomings is analyzed and off ers on its improvement are provided. The purpose of the study is to analyze legislative acts and doctrinal sources to determine the procedural status of a judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court in criminal proceedings. The Higher Anti-Corruption Court, as the highest specialized court in the judicial system of Ukraine, has the task of administering justice in accordance with the principles and procedures of the judiciary defi ned by law in order to protect the individual, society and the state from corruption and related crimes, and judicial control over the pre-trial investigation of these crimes, observance of the rights, freedoms and interests of persons in criminal proceedings, as well as resolving the issue of recognition of unjustifi ed assets and their recovery in the state income in cases provided for law, civil proceedings. The Higher Anti-Corruption Court mission is to deliver fair justice in criminal proceedings against corruption. The judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court as a special participant in criminal proceedings is characterized as follows: 1. He has a central place in the system of legal protection of constitutional and other legal values. The activity of judges is a universal mechanism for the protection and protection of law, the restoration of the infringed law, the termination of the infringed law, the hearing of cases in court. 2. Publicity of judicial activity is the essence of openness, political or party involvement of courts and judges. 3. The jurisdiction of judicial activity in criminal proceedings in corruption cases lies in the totality of the competences of the subjects of this activity to hear and resolve this category of cases.