МLIMITS OF PERMISSIBILITY IN COVERT INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS: CRIME PROVOCATION THROUGH THE PRISM OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE

This article explores the complex and pressing issue of the limits of permissible actions by law enforcement authorities during the conduct of covert investigative (search) activities, particularly in situations where there is a risk of entrapment or provocation to commit a crime.It provides an in-depth analysis of how Ukrainian criminal procedural legislation-namely, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraineregulates such measures while also drawing attention to gaps in legal practice that may lead to violations of human rights.The focus is placed on the correlation between the concepts of covert investigative (search) actions and provocation within both national legislation and European legal standards.The article offers a theoretical reflection on the nature of criminal provocation, identifying it as a specific form of abuse of authority by pre-trial investigation bodies.A significant portion of the research is devoted to analyzing the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly the landmark judgments in Ramanauskas v. Lithuania (2008), Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (1998), Mills v. Ireland (2016) and Ramanauskas v. Lithuania (No. 2), which played a key role in establishing standards for the admissibility of evidence obtained through the involvement of state agents.Special attention is also given to the case law of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, analyzing decisions that illustrate the ambiguity and inconsistency in the national judiciary's approach to evaluating the admissibility of evidence obtained through covert operations.The article emphasizes that proper legal qualification of such circumstances requires careful assessment: whether lawful oversight of criminal behavior occurred, or whether there was unlawful provocation.Moreover, the article addresses the procedural consequences of establishing the fact of provocation.It highlights that if evidence is proven to have been obtained as a result of provocation, such evidence must be deemed inadmissible and loses its evidentiary value.This, in turn, may serve as grounds for an acquittal or for a reassessment of the defendant's criminal liability.The analysis presented in the article is of considerable importance for improving national legislation on the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions and aligning it with European standards.