Problematic issues of legitimization of the procedural order of notification of suspicion of a certain category of persons

Keywords: the concept and grounds for the notification of suspicion, special subjects and features of the notification of suspicion of a certain category of persons, justification and criteria for legitimizing the procedure of notification of suspicion


The legal institute of suspicion is one of the defining procedural institutes in the modern criminal process of Ukraine. The problem of reporting suspicions of committing criminal offenses to people's deputies of Ukraine and other persons who are referred to the «separate category of persons» by the criminal procedure law has become especially relevant.

The research conducted in the article is due to a number of problems and gaps identified by judicial and law enforcement practice related to the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the law on subjects and the procedure for notifying the above-mentioned persons of suspicion.

The purpose of the article is to analyze and determine the legal justification or legitimization of the grounds and procedure for applying the procedure for notification of suspicion of committing a criminal offense to a certain category of persons. For this purpose, the notice of suspicion is, first of all, considered as a complex procedural measure provided by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which consists of successive, interconnected and interdependent stages: establishing legal grounds for notification of suspicion; adoption of the relevant procedural decision and its execution in the form of a written document indicating all the circumstances and qualifications of the criminal offense; conducting a procedural action, the content of which is reduced to the direct delivery of such a document (notice) to a certain person with an explanation of the content of the suspicion and his procedural rights.

It is concluded that compliance with the above-mentioned legal procedure for notification of suspicion, in particular, personal, direct delivery of such notification to representatives of certain categories of persons by law special entities – the Prosecutor General (acting Prosecutor General), his deputy , the head of the regional prosecutor's office within its competence, is the basis for legal legitimization of this procedural institution, ensuring the special legal status of these persons, as well as guaranteeing the rule of law, respect for constitutional rights and achieving legal objectives of criminal proceedings.


1. Кримінальний процесуальний кодекс України від 13 квітня 2012 року № 4651-VI. URL: (Дата звернення: 04.03.2022).
2. Академічний тлумачний словник української мови. URL: (Дата звернення: 04.03.2022).
3. Про прокуратуру : Закон України від 14 жовтня 2014 року № 1697­VII. URL:­18 (Дата звернення: 04.03.2022).
4. Рішення Європейського суду з прав людини у справі «Нечипорук і Йонкало проти України» № 42310/04 від 21 квітня 2011 року. URL: (Дата звернення: 04.03.2022).
5. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom, No. 12244/86; 12245/86; 12383/86, 30 August 1990. URL:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57721%22]} (Дата звернення: 04.03.2022).
6. European Court of Human Rights. Case of Murray v United Kingdom, No. 14310/88, 28 October 1994. URL:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57895%22]} (Дата звернення: 04.03.2022).
7. Глинська Н. В., Клепка Д. І. Оскарження повідомлення про підозру під час досудового розслідування. Вісник кримінального судочинства. 2019. № 4. С. 17–32.

1. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. (2012). Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy : Zakon Ukrainy № 4651-VI. URL: (Last accessed: 04.03.2022) [in Ukrainian].
2. Akademichnyi tlumachnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy. URL: (Last accessed: 04.03.2022) [in Ukrainian].
3. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. (2014). Pro prokuraturu : Zakon Ukrainy № 1697­VII. URL:­18 (Last accessed: 04.03.2022) [in Ukrainian].
4. Yevropeiskyi sud z prav liudyny. (2011). Rishennia u spravi «Nechyporuk i Yonkalo proty Ukrainy» No 42310/04. URL: (Last accessed: 04.03.2022) [in Ukrainian].
5. European Court of Human Rights. (1990). Case of «Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom» No. 12244/86; 12245/86; 12383/86. URL:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57721%22]} (Last accessed: 04.03.2022).
6. European Court of Human Rights. (1994). Case of «Murray v United Kingdom» No. 14310/88. URL:{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57895%22]} (Last accessed: 04.03.2022).
7. Hlynska, N. V., Klepka, D. I. (2019). Oskarzhennia povidomlennia pro pidozru pid chas dosudovoho rozsliduvannia. Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva, 4, 17–32. [in Ukrainian].

Abstract views: 24
PDF Downloads: 28
How to Cite
Heselev , O. (2022). Problematic issues of legitimization of the procedural order of notification of suspicion of a certain category of persons . Scientific Papers of the Legislation Institute of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, (2), 40-49.