Verification of the legality of prosecutorial decisions on the closure of criminal proceedings: prosecutorial supervision or procedural guidance?

The article explores the legal nature of the prosecutor’s activity in verifying the legality of decisions to close criminal proceedings in the context of the transformation of the institution of prosecutorial supervision and the establishment of procedural guidance as a distinct constitutional function of the prosecutor’s office. The study presents a comparative analysis of the provisions of the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code of the Ukrainian SSR and the 2012 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the prosecutor’s powers related to the review of the legality of investigative decisions to close criminal cases. The author argues that the current wording of Articles 36 and 284 of the CPC of Ukraine reflects a shift in the prosecutor’s role—from that of an external overseer to a procedural coordinator of the pre-trial investigation, responsible for the legality of decisions at the stage of their formation, including decisions on case closure. It is emphasized that procedural guidance is not a form of prosecutorial supervision but an independent function explicitly defined by the Constitution of Ukraine. Based on the scholarly views, the author substantiates that prosecutorial review of the validity and legality of closure decisions is a manifestation of procedural guidance, rather than a form of classical supervision. At the same time, attention is drawn to Article 36(6) of the CPC of Ukraine, which grants heads of prosecutor’s offices the authority to cancel decisions of lower-level prosecutors and investigators, thereby preserving certain elements of the Soviet-era supervisory model. Statistical data and practical considerations are cited in support of the need for a final conceptual rethinking of the authority to cancel decisions to close criminal proceedings. It is concluded that the modern model of procedural guidance should ensure continuous oversight, safeguard the rights of participants in the process, and enhance the effectiveness of criminal prosecution at all stages, including its lawful termination.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law
Published
2025-08-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2025.89.3.58
Primary Topic
Legal Studies and Reforms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Verification of the legality of prosecutorial decisions on the closure of criminal proceedings: prosecutorial supervision or procedural guidance?

G. P. Nyzhnyk
Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law
Legal Studies and Reforms
article

Verification of the legality of prosecutorial decisions on the closure of criminal proceedings: prosecutorial supervision or procedural guidance?

G. P. Nyzhnyk
article en

Abstract

The article explores the legal nature of the prosecutor’s activity in verifying the legality of decisions to close criminal proceedings in the context of the transformation of the institution of prosecutorial supervision and the establishment of procedural guidance as a distinct constitutional function of the prosecutor’s office. The study presents a comparative analysis of the provisions of the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code of the Ukrainian SSR and the 2012 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the prosecutor’s powers related to the review of the legality of investigative decisions to close criminal cases. The author argues that the current wording of Articles 36 and 284 of the CPC of Ukraine reflects a shift in the prosecutor’s role—from that of an external overseer to a procedural coordinator of the pre-trial investigation, responsible for the legality of decisions at the stage of their formation, including decisions on case closure. It is emphasized that procedural guidance is not a form of prosecutorial supervision but an independent function explicitly defined by the Constitution of Ukraine. Based on the scholarly views, the author substantiates that prosecutorial review of the validity and legality of closure decisions is a manifestation of procedural guidance, rather than a form of classical supervision. At the same time, attention is drawn to Article 36(6) of the CPC of Ukraine, which grants heads of prosecutor’s offices the authority to cancel decisions of lower-level prosecutors and investigators, thereby preserving certain elements of the Soviet-era supervisory model. Statistical data and practical considerations are cited in support of the need for a final conceptual rethinking of the authority to cancel decisions to close criminal proceedings. It is concluded that the modern model of procedural guidance should ensure continuous oversight, safeguard the rights of participants in the process, and enhance the effectiveness of criminal prosecution at all stages, including its lawful termination.

Uzhhorod National University Herald Series LawVol. 3(89)
Bio-Medical Science (South Korea) (KR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Legal Studies and Reforms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Verification of the legality of prosecutorial decisions on the closure of criminal proceedings: prosecutorial supervision or procedural guidance? — G. P. Nyzhnyk · Uzhhorod National University Herald Series Law (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS