ВИРІШЕННЯ ПОЗОВНИХ ВИМОГ У КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОВАДЖЕННІ ПРИ РОЗБІЖНОСТІ МІЖ «ДАВНІСНИМИ» СТРОКАМИ

Abstract

It is stated, that within the resolution of claims in criminal proceedings, the relevant provisions of other branches of law (in particular, civil and civil procedural) should be applied in their close connection with criminal procedural and substantive norms. The position on the need to ignore the statute of limitations for criminal liability within the consideration of a civil lawsuit, has been criticized. It is also substantiated, that within the consideration of a civil lawsuit, both the statute of limitations and the statute of limitations for criminal liability should be taken into consideration. It is proved, that in process of setting the statute of limitations and the statute of limitations for criminal liability, the legislator was guided by different goals, wanted to achieve different interests, was «bound» by various restrictions. It is argued, that the statute of limitations for criminal liability and the statute of limitations are different in their nature, they arise under different legal relationships, they differs by the grounds for their arisen. The position of the Supreme Court, under which within the consideration of a civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings the court is not entitled to make a decision to refuse to satisfy it due to the expiration of the statute of limitations under the Civil Code of Ukraine, has been criticized. It is argued, that in order for a violated right to be protected within the consideration of a joint (civil) lawsuit, it is required, at least, that: a) since the day of the criminal offense committing and until the entry into the legal force of the sentence, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has not expired; b) the claim for protection of a civil right or interest may be satisfied within the limitation period (the exception is legal relations to which the statute of limitations does not apply).