The article is devoted to the study of the scene as an investigative action, which is an important mean of obtaining information during the investigation of escape from the place of imprisonment. The success of the investigation in many cases depends on the quality of this investigative action, as the information obtained during the scene inspection might possess evidentiary features. In this case, often the actual data obtained as a result of the survey that cannot be obtained from other sources. The special significance of the inspection of the scene is indicated by the fact that this is the first investigative action after the opening of criminal proceedings (in some cases it is carried out before the starting of criminal proceedings); the closest in time and space collision of the investigator with the event of the crime itself. At the same time, the inspection is the most time-consuming action: it can take many hours. It is the inspection of the scene allows establishing a large amount of evidence relating to all elements of the crime - the object, the objective side, the subject and the subjective side. In addition, conducting a survey of the area or premises requires the use of a number of tactics and forensic techniques.

The Prosecutor’s Office and the Sejm

Author argues in the article that under the legal status preceding the 2009 amendment to the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Sejm’s control over the actions of the Minister of Justice – Prosecutor General found a direct basis in the constitutional norm, which entrusts the Sejm with the control over the Council of Ministers. Under the 2009 prosecution model, where the functions of the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice were separated, the Prosecutor General, directing the activities of the prosecution service, was an autonomous body in relation to Council of Ministers, President, Sejm and Senate. The reconnection of the functions of the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General by the 2016 Act gives the Sejm the possibility of parliamentary control of the Prosecutor General. Author indicates the instruments of parliamentary control emphasizing that the Sejm is entitled only to such powers of control that have been clearly defined in the Constitution and laws. Author justifies the thesis that the diversity of the models of functioning of the prosecutor’s office in Poland, as an institution beyond the framework of the classical Montesquieu classification, does not deprive the Sejm of the right to control the prosecutor’s office, which he realizes with the help of diverse means.

Guarantees of Compliance with Professional Ethics by Judge, Prosecutor and Barrister (on the Example of Ukraine)

The scientific article is devoted to guarantees of compliance with professional ethics by judges, prosecutors and lawyers. The purpose of the article is the scientific development of the problems of guarantees of compliance with the professional ethics of the judge, prosecutor and lawyer by defining the concept of guarantees of compliance with professional ethics, defining the main varieties of these guarantees, as well as providing their general characteristics. The scientific article formulates the concept of guarantees of compliance with professional ethics as special legal means aimed at ensuring compliance of professional activity and out-of-service behavior of representatives of relevant legal professions with ethical requirements, prevention of violations of professional ethics and elimination of their negative consequences. The main types of guarantees of compliance with professional ethics by judges, prosecutors and lawyers, namely: ethical selection; making an oath; development and approval of codes of ethics; study of ethics; activities of the relevant authorized bodies; responsibility for ethics violations. It is concluded that these guarantees are typical for representatives of various legal professions, due to the unified legal nature of the rules of professional ethics for lawyers. In view of this, the further development of such guarantees is seen in their unification and improvement of the regulatory regulation of the professional ethics of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as the practice of its application. It is proved that these guarantees constitute an orderly system, that in unity and interconnection allows to establish certain ethical rules and norms, to bring them to the attention of interested persons, to determine the state of their observance and to ensure the most complete implementation in professional activity. Based on the analysis of the current legislation of Ukraine on the judiciary and the status of judges, the prosecutor’s office and the bar examined in detail the content of each of these guarantees. Their influence on the observance of professional ethics of judges, prosecutors and lawyers is determined.

The article discusses a prosecutor’s position in the Polish civil proceedings in relation to the form of its participation in civil cases. Prosecutor’s possibilities to participate in the civil procedure depend on whether or not he brought a court action or he joined proceedings already pending. The article focuses on the problem wheather prosecutor’s right to bring the action before the civil court should be considered as proper solution during the amendment processs of the Polish civil procedure code.

The adversarial principle is merely the name of a specific type of organizing process, not a specific Directive of criminal proceedings. The adversarial principle is uniformly recognized as non-codified directive, according to which the criminal process is conducted in the form of equal sides dispute before the impartial court. The adversarial principle in criminal proceedings is something other than adversarial in civil proceedings. The adversarial principle was exposed in the course of work on the revision of the Code of criminal proceedings. The creators of the reform emphasized that Article 167 § 1 of the Code of criminal proceedings differently than it did before, sets out the rules of proof, giving this task in the hands of the parties, leaving only the court admissibility of evidence, and reducing the possibility of taking evidence by the court to exceptional cases justified special circumstances. The creators of the reform emphasized that Article 167 § 1 of the Code of criminal proceedings differently than it did before, sets out the rules of taking of evidence, giving this process to the parties, leaving only the admissibility of evidence to the court, and reducing the possibility of taking evidence by the court to exceptional cases justified by special circumstances. Will be changed the rules for transfer of the court materials from preliminary proceedings. Another important issue is the systematization of the list of evidence, in accordance with the modified Article 333 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and solutions for planning of court hearings. May cause discussions restriction the possibility of taking the initiative of the evidence by the court. The changes enforce proactive stance of the accused, even though he should be able to take advantage of the „right to silence”. Militate against the principle of adversarial problems brought to light on the background of the appeal proceedings. You can express its concern that the adversarial principle in the present approach will detrimental to the presumption of innocence, leading to a model of „proceedings for the rich”. These changes will force to remodel the psyche of judges who feel guilty persons determining cases of dispute run by the parties, not the players involved who have the task of replacing the prosecutor.