Application of measures of procedural coercion in the economic process: certain aspects

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of certain aspects of the application of measures of procedural coercion in the economic process. In particular, the study of the effectiveness of the application of certain measures of procedural coercion in the economic process. This topic was chosen for research in view of the illegal behavior of participants in the economic process, which, according to the analysis of court practice, has recently become a mass phenomenon and has diversified into various types. The state of war in Ukraine also affected both the process of consideration of economic disputes and the behavior of the participants in the economic process, in particular of a negative nature, such as failure to appear at a court session without a valid reason, which prolongs the time frame for consideration of the case. For this purpose, it was established that in accordance with Part 3 of Article 42 of the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Economic Procedure of Ukraine), in the event that a party to the case fails to fulfill its obligations, the court shall apply procedural coercion measures to such a party to the case provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure [1]. Pursuant to part 1 of Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code, measures of procedural coercion are: 1) warning; 2) removal from the courtroom; 3) temporary seizure of evidence for investigation by the court; 4) fine. At the same time, the application of procedural coercion measures to a person does not exempt him from fulfilling his duties. It was determined that in accordance with Part 2 of Article 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code, procedural coercion measures are applied by the court by issuing a resolution. At the same time, paragraph 16 of part 1 of article 255 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes that decisions of the court of first instance on the collection of a fine in the procedure of procedural coercion may be challenged in the appeal procedure [1]. Also, the court itself can cancel the decision on the collection of a fine issued by it in accordance with the sixth part of Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the person in respect of whom it was issued corrected the committed violation and (or) provided evidence of the validity of the reasons for not fulfilling the relevant requirements of the court or his procedural duties. Based on the results of the analysis of the norms of economic procedural legislation and court practice, the need to make changes to the norms defining the procedure for applying measures of procedural coercion in the economic process is substantiated.