OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF A PREVENTIVE MEASURE IN THE FORM OF BAIL: PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Автор(и)

  • Mykhailo Yakovenko Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Criminal Procedure Department, Україна

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61345/2734-8873.2024.1.18

Ключові слова:

criminal proceedings, preventive measures, right to liberty, procedural obligations, bail

Анотація

The purpose of the article is to identify the problems in the fulfilment of the obligations related to bail as a preventive measure based on the approaches formulated in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as to offer recommendations on how to resolve them.

Methods. The general philosophical basis of the study was formed by axiological and hermeneutical approaches. In particular, the first one allowed to carry out a value analysis of the fundamental human right to liberty and to assess the impact of the amount of bail to provide an effective alternative for the restriction of this right. Meanwhile, the second made it possible to apply an in-depth study and interpretation of the legal texts of the European Court of Human Rights judgments and the national legislation. When building the system of recommendations, we used the systemic and structural method, as well as the logical research method and the method of legal modelling with.

Results and conclusions. The analysis of the legal positions of the ECtHR made it possible to conditionally single out the following standards and recommendations for national judges for ensuring the legality and reasonableness of the determination the amount of bail in criminal proceedings: 1) the main purpose of bail is to ensure the appearance of a person, not to punish him or her or to create conditions for compensation for the damage caused by a criminal offence; 2) the accuracy in determining the amount of bail as an alternative to possible keeping in custody should be equal to the thoroughness in justifying the continued keeping of a person in custody; 3) if the bail is provided by the suspect/accused, the key thing to consider when determining the optimal amount of bail is his/her assets (property status) and solvency. However, if the bail is provided by another person (the bail bondsman), the relationship between the bail bondsman and the suspect/accused should be taken into account to determine the effective bail amount; 4) the extent of the damage caused by the criminal offence may be taken into account as an exception when determining the bail amount - but this cannot be applied as a general rule due to the different purpose of the bail; 5) a suspect/accused person who is being considered the possibility of being granted bail must provide the court with information that may be necessary to adequately determine the amount of potential bail and be verified for this aim; 6) the amount of bail must be substantiated in the decision of the investigating judge or court, which will serve as an important guarantee of preventing arbitrariness; 7) failure of a person to fulfil the obligation to provide bail after it has been set may be a sign that the amount of bail is excessive and disproportionate for the suspect/accused.

Посилання

Judgment in case of Bojilov v. Bulgaria (Applic no. 45114/98), from 22 December 2004. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-67899.

Judgment in case of Gafà v. Malta (Applic no. 54335/14), from 22 May 2018. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-183126.

Judgment in case of Georgieva v. Bulgaria (Applic no. 16085/02), from 3 July 2008. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-87315.

Judgment in case of Idalov v. Russia [GC] (Applic no. 5826/03), from 22 May 2012. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-110986.

Judgment in case of Istomina v. Ukraine (Applic no. 23312/15), from

January 2022. Availablable at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_h11#Text.

Judgment in case of Kolakovic v. Malta (Applic no. 76392/12), from 19 March 2015. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-152892.

Judgment in case of Mangouras v. Spain [GC], (Applic no. 12050/04), from 28 September 2010. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-100686.

Judgment in case of Neumeister v. Austria, Series A no. 8, from 27 June 1968. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-57544 Judgment in case of Piotr Osuch v. Poland (Applic no. 30028/06), from 3 November 2009. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-95583.

Judgment in case of Skrobol v. Poland (Applic no. 44165/98), from 13 September 2005. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-70114.

Judgment in case of Toshev v. Bulgaria (Applic no. 56308/00), from 22 10 August 2006. Availablable at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-76687.

Kolomoiskyi – u SIZO iz zastavoiu 3 mlrd hrn, Shchyhol za 25 mln hrn – na voli. Zvidky berutsia tsi tsyfry y u chomu problema praktyky? Rozpovidaie advokat Vadym Zavoritny. Forbes Ukraine. 4 December 2023. Availablable at: https://forbes.ua/money/zastava-po-ukrainski-kolomoyskiy-u-sizo-iz-zastavoyu-u-3-mlrd-grn-shchigol-za-25-mln-grn-na-voli-zvidki-berutsya-tsi-tsifri-y-u-chomu-problema-praktiki-rozpovidae-advokat-vadim-zavoritniy-04122023-17662.

Poriadok vnesennia koshtiv na spetsialnyi rakhunok u razi zastosuvannia zastavy yak zapobizhnoho zakhodu: Postanova KMU vid 11 sichnia 2012 r. № 15. Availablable at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/15-2012-%D0%BF#Text.

Sud zmenshyv rozmir zastavy Kolomoiskomu, ale zalyshyv yoho pid vartoiu. 28 February 2024. Availablable at: https://tsn.ua/exclusive/sud-zmenshiv-rozmir-zastavi-kolomoyskomu-ale-zalishiv-yogo-pid-vartoyu-2523445.html.

Top naibilshykh zastav pidozriuvanym pid chas povnomasshtabnoi viiny. Slovo i dilo. Analitychnyi portal. 19 June 2023. Availablable at: https://www.slovoidilo.ua/2023/06/19/infografika/pravo/top-najbilshyx-zastav-pidozryuvanym-povnomasshtabnoyi-vijny.

##submission.downloads##

Опубліковано

2024-06-18