Criminal Prohibitions of Land Sales to Israelis in the Palestinian Authority

The purpose of the study is to analyze the case law on blocking websites in criminal proceedings and find the right way to solve this gap in legislation, by arresting in accordance with Chapter 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, creating conditions for improving criminal procedural law to clearly define the mechanism of blocking websites and formulate appropriate proposals for amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Research methods were used to achieve this goal, in the process of scientific research used various methods of scientific knowledge. The methodological basis of scientific work were general scientific methods: theoretical (analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, systems analysis), as well as empirical research methods, for example, conducting expert evaluation and other methods. Results: the case law on blocking websites in criminal proceedings is analyzed and attention is drawn to the lack of a clear mechanism for restricting access to websites within criminal proceedings. This shows a big problem for making legal judgments. It was concluded that the current version of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine could not be used to block websites. Emphasis is placed on the impossibility of recognizing a web- site as material evidence in criminal proceedings, as this contradicts the legal definition of physical evidence as a material object. The references in the motions of the pre-trial investigation bodies and the decisions of the investigating judges to the fact that the users of the website may have intellectual property rights, as it contradicts the norms of civil law, are considered unfounded. It is proposed to supplement part ten of Article 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with a new object that can be seized - a website.

Abstract. The article is devoted to analysis of the effectiveness of the main procedural legal and financial (banking) mechanisms designed to ensure the protection of property rights’ immunity. The legally regulated procedures of such protection are analyzed on platforms — both procedural and legal as well as financial and economic. There is no doubt that only in a state where the immunity of property is declared and guaranteed to the person can be provided the development of economic, intellectual, socially oriented activities. The effect of the principle of immunity of property rights is not absolute, but its restrictions are possible only on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by law. The topicality of the inviolability of property rights is due to the role of law as a platform for citizens’ property independence and their participation in the processes of social reproduction. The guarantee of property independence is the right of ownership of property and non-property rights, which is realized by giving a person the right to freely, unimpededly, and fully exercise the rights of the owner of personal property. The compliance of the inviolability of property rights during criminal proceedings is not properly ensured in the current CPC (The Criminal Procedure Code) of Ukraine; in particular, the movement of confiscated property is not regulated, which questions the novelty of inviolability. To improve the procedure for the protection of property rights, this is necessary to regulate at the legislative level the mechanism of protection and restoration of property rights of persons victimized by criminal offenses. The etymology of «inviolability» guarantees by law the protection of the status of the person from any encroachment. Inviolability in the economic and legal context is mainly understood as a person’s legal status, which is an unalterable guarantee against unauthorized restrictions by the state institutions — law enforcement, financial, court, and individuals and legal entities. An attempt is made to accumulate most of the latest achievements (both legislative, theoretically investigative and applied) on the issues of legal regulation of the studied financial and legal relations, based on which scientific views are substantiated, and proposals are developed to improve regulations in this area. The main vectors of economic and legal mechanisms for the protection of the inviolability of property rights, which would correlate with generally accepted European and world standards, have been identified. Keywords: the inviolability of property rights, property rights, principles of proceedings, judicial protection, seizure of property, financial guarantee, financial risks. JEL Classification G28; К14 Formulas: 0; fig.: 0; tabl.: 0; bibl.: 12.

The article is devoted to the study of the institution of property seizure in criminal proceedings in Ukraine and its impact on the guarantees of the inviolability of property rights. I analyse the current legislation, in particular the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – «the CPC of Ukraine»), as well as the international standards of protection of property rights established by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – «the ECHR», «the Court»). The article emphasises the importance of maintaining a balance between the public interest and the rights of the owner, and also discusses the key issues relating to the application of property confiscation. One of the most problematic aspects is the optional participation of the property owner in court proceedings related to the seizure of property, which contradicts the principles of adversarial proceedings, access to justice and proportionality of interference with property rights. The author draws attention to the lack of a clear definition of the concept of «restriction of property rights» in the CPC of Ukraine, as well as in doctrinal sources, and the absence of a mechanism to ensure effective protection of the rights of persons whose property is seized. This creates conditions for potential abuse by law enforcement agencies and violates the rights of property owners to peaceful enjoyment of their property. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of ECHR case law, which requires that any interference with property rights must be provided for by law, be in the public interest and ensure a fair balance between the interests of society and the individual. In particular, these aspects will be considered in the light of the ECHR’s position in Brumarescu v. Romania, Sporrong and Lennroth v. Sweden, and others, which establish that the imposition of an ‘excessive burden’ on the owner of property is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

11. The Palestinian Culture of Death: Shariah and Siyasah— Justice, Political Power, and Capital Punishment in the Palestinian National Authority was published in The Cultural Lives of Capital Punishment on page 231.

In jurisdictions following the common law tradition,1 and indeed in many more, it is usual for suspected child abuse and neglect to be legally approachable through the parallel systems of criminal and civil process.2 Criminal law and procedure may be applied for the purpose of punishing child victims’ adult guardians,3 who are often their biological parents, when their conduct has caused or permitted their children to suffer in ways falling within criminal prohibitions. Civil procedures are directed towards direct protection of the children themselves while they are in the continuing charge of their parents or of other legally responsible adults.4 Protection laws may also provide means for the placement of children at risk with other, approved guardians when parents5 have been found by judicial determination to be absent or otherwise to have failed or to be likely to fail6 to satisfy standards of care set by child welfare legislation.

The article analyses the process of applying the European Court of Human Rights case law and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 in criminal proceedings in Ukraine. The basic principles arising from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and their impact on national legislation and court practice are investigated. Particular attention is paid to the issues of observance of the right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence, prohibition of torture and effective investigation of human rights violations. The key cases of the European Court of Human Rights against Ukraine, which have determined the directions of reforms in the field of criminal justice, are analysed. The problems of implementation of the European Court of Human Rights case law in the criminal justice system of Ukraine, in particular, the formal approach to the use of case law, the lack of an effective mechanism for the execution of judgments and insufficient training of law enforcement and law enforcement agencies are investigated. The following prospects for improving the application of the European Court of Human Rights case law in criminal proceedings in Ukraine are identified: 1) the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to comply with European standards, in particular, with regard to the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, protection against torture and unlawful detention, ill-treatment, etc.; 2) the development of recommendations to improve the training of judges, prosecutors, lawyers and pre-trial investigation bodies; 3) the strengthening of control over the observance of human rights, the reasonableness of the time limits during the pre-trial investigation, and fair and lawful trial; The following prospects for improving the application of the European Court of Human Rights case law in criminal proceedings in Ukraine are identified: 4) the improvement of procedures for verification, evaluation and examination of evidence in order to protect the defence from unlawful actions of the prosecution; 5) the introduction of mechanisms for the effective implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in individual cases; 6) the provision of adequate funding and resources to law enforcement and law enforcement agencies.

The article is devoted to the study of the legal regulation of the mechanism of recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue as a separate type of civil forfeiture together with its international legal principles. The authors reveal the essence and importance of the procedure for recognising assets as unjustified and their subsequent recovery for the benefit of the state in the context of termination of property rights and ensuring the rule of law in Ukraine. It is determined that the institution of civil forfeiture, which provides for the recognition of assets as unjustified, plays an important role in supporting the country in the fight against illegally acquired assets and compensation for losses caused by corruption. It is established that the recognition of assets as unjustified (civil forfeiture) can be considered as a method of compulsory seizure and termination of property rights (other property rights) from a person, without bringing him/her to administrative or criminal liability, in cases provided for by civil procedural law, and transfer of property (assets, income) to the state ownership. The author proves that recognition of assets as unjustified is a form of ‘extended civil forfeiture’ imposed by a court outside criminal proceedings, with the application of the adversarial principle. The article analyses the regulatory legal acts, provisions of substantive and procedural legislation, case law, and doctrinal views on this issue. The author describes the principles and legal limits of civil forfeiture without bringing persons to criminal liability established in international law, and the ECHR case law on the admissibility and compliance with Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author specifies that assets may be recognised as unjustified if their origin cannot be proved to be obtained legally and if their acquisition violates applicable law. It is stated that the recognition of assets as unjustified (civil forfeiture) is an essential tool for seizing property obtained as a result of corruption and other means of committing a crime. The author concludes that this institution is significant for effective counteraction to corruption and compensation for damage caused to the state.

The purpose of the paper is to investigate reasons for the restriction of property rights in the application of temporary seizure of property in criminal proceedings and to determine promising directions for further research on the issues. The issue of measures to ensure criminal proceedings and observance of human and civil rights and freedoms was investigated by a number of domestic scientists, but the degree of investigation of grounds for restricting property rights in the application of temporary seizure of property in criminal proceedings in the context of amendments made to the CPC of Ukraine in recent years remains insufficient. That is why the study of the grounds for limiting property rights in the application of temporary seizure of property in criminal proceedings is now of particular urgency. Methodology. Methodological basis of the research is a set of philosophical, general scientific, special scientific methods. The method of logical-semantic analysis is used to clarify the meaning of multi-valued concepts, the application of the method of system analysis allowed investigating the place of the institute of property rights in legal literature and legislation of Ukraine. The method of grouping and the system and structural approach are used for classifying the distribution, ascertaining the internal structure, and analysing the interconnections between elements of the concept of ownership and the category of property rights restriction. Results. The paper examines the factual and formal legal grounds for limiting the ownership of a suspect, accused, and other persons in the application of temporary seizure of property in a criminal proceeding. The conclusion is drawn on the need to clarify the factual grounds for the temporary seizure of property for cases where such a seizure is carried out by a person who has carried out legal detention in the manner prescribed by Articles 207, 208 of the CPC of Ukraine and is not an investigator, prosecutor, or other authorized official. Practical implications. Proposals regarding the resolution of individual legal conflicts in the current CPC of Ukraine are provided.

The purpose of the articleis studying the peculiarities of the functioning of the National Agency of Ukraine on the Detection, Investigation and Management of Assets Received from Corruption and Other Crimes as a new executive body of Ukraine in co-operation with other bodies, problems of providing property rights of persons at the stage of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings, and making suggestions for their solution. Methodology. The paper uses general scientific and special-scientific methods of cognition, the concrete combination of which is determined by the purpose and objectives of the study. Using the formal-logical method has allowed to define, clarify and supplement the individual concepts of the category and thus to organize the conceptual-categorical apparatus. The method of formal logic andlogico-meaningful method were also used, in particular methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, analogies and generalizations, etc. The scientific novelty of the article is determined by the fact that the article outlined the problems of ensuring the property rights of individuals at the stage of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings, and suggested ways of their solution, as well as investigated the peculiarities of the functioning of Agency as a new executive body of Ukraine in co-operation with other bodies. Conclusions.The need to create an Agency was one of the main criteria for Ukraine to implement the EU-visa liberalization plan. It is necessary to note a number of positive effects provided by the Law «On the National Agency of Ukraine on the Detection, Investigation and Management of Assets Received from Corruption and Other Crimes» in the field of protection of property rights of participants in criminal proceedings. The creation of Agency enabled the use of procedural mechanisms for an effective way to protect individuals’ property rights within reasonable timeframes. There was nocapacityto increase and maintain the arrested property underconditions of constant inflationbefore the creation of the institution of the Agency. And, of course, this is a new, specific and important function of our state. However, some issues in this area require clarification or a more detailed legal settlement. For example, the issue of implementing the procedural mechanism of the Agency’s activity in the criminal process arose after the adoption of the specialized law. There is also a problem of the transfer of property to the Agency management. After all, the current criminal procedural law provides for a short period of consideration of the application for transfer of property. In this case, it is necessary to optimize the process to ensure the protection of the rights of the owners of assets. It would be appropriate to require the court, before consideration of the transfer request, to send the submissions to the parties, and in the absence of parties to send the submissions repeatedly, or to receive a notification that the parties have been duly informed about the consideration of the application for transfer of property. In addition, it is necessary to consolidate the right of the person to appeal the decision to transfer property to Agency. Keywords: assets; National Agency of Ukraine on the Detection, Investigation and Management of Assets Received from Corruption and Other Crimes; ARMA; property rights; protection of property rights.

The article examines the key issues associated with the temporary seizure of property within the framework of fundamental principles of criminal proceedings. It explores the relationship between such seizures and procedural requirements, focusing on the inviolability of property rights and the reasonableness of time limits. The procedural nuances of temporary property seizure are discussed, with particular attention to legislative provisions governing the consequences of such actions. The article also addresses the problematic practice of seizing property without a court order, despite legal norms that mandate deprivation or restriction of property rights during criminal proceedings to be based solely on a substantiated court decision in line with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Further, the article explores the challenges related to excessive interference with property rights due to the prolonged retention of seized property by pre-trial investigative bodies. Special attention is given to judicial practices concerning compliance with reasonable time limits after the temporary seizure of computer systems, their components, and mobile communication terminals. Examples are provided where investigative judges have imposed specific deadlines to ensure that pre-trial investigations adhere to reasonable time constraints during extended interference with property rights. The article identifies key procedural and legal strategies available to the defense for preventing or mitigating excessive interference with property rights following temporary seizure as a criminal proceeding measure. These strategies are outlined in Article 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In instances where the pre-trial investigation body fails to comply with an investigative judge’s order to lift a property seizure and return the property to its owner, the defense may petition the judge to establish procedural time limits for the investigation. It is emphasized that if temporarily seized property is not returned after the seizure is lifted, the court possesses the authority to establish judicial oversight and set procedural deadlines for the pre-trial investigation body to perform all necessary actions for property return, as mandated by the investigative judge’s order.

Ireland has been in the grip of a housing crisis for several years. Lately, there have been mounting calls for a referendum to introduce a right to housing in the Constitution. Regardless of the merits of this proposal, it stems, in part, from a perception that the Constitution in its current form inhibits the Oireachtas from taking radical steps to remedy the housing crisis. We argue instead that legal interpretations of constitutional case law have over-estimated the degree to which the courts will protect individual property rights at the expense of the common good. In Part I, we outline the case law relating to the protection of property rights in the Constitution, and identify a number of key principles. We conclude from an examination of Irish case law that the courts have, largely, deferred to the Oireachtas in restricting individual property rights in favor of the common good, provided any measures are designed to achieve a clear social objective, are not based on arbitrary or discriminatory considerations, and respect fair procedures. In addition, we note that the courts have been particularly deferential to Oireachtas in taking steps to secure the common good in times of crisis. In Part II, we examine some of the Bills proposed in the Oireachtas over the last several years to address Ireland’s housing crisis and assess, in light of case law, the likelihood that they might have been found constitutional. Despite the wide deference shown by the courts to the Oireachtas in limiting property rights in favor of the public interest, we note that in response to these Bills, the Government has often declared itself to be acting on the basis of legal advice to the effect that radical housing reform would necessarily prejudice the individual property rights of landlords. This has meant that, in reality, the wide provision for legislating for the pressing needs of the public has been diminished in favor of prioritizing individual property rights. This does not correlate with the attitude espoused by the courts. We argue that there is little to suggest that the courts would view constitutional property rights as posing a barrier to radical housing reform, should appropriate safeguards be included. In Part III, we conclude that successive Governments have continued to rely on a narrow understanding of property rights case law to justify a constrained role for the State in the housing market. While this is a perfectly valid political preference, we suggest that it is not a constitutional principle.

The article is relevant in modern conditions since the protection of property rights is one of the main prerequisites for the functioning of the market economy and ensuring the country's economic development. In this regard, it is important to study the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the violation of property rights in criminal and civil proceedings, as this can help to improve the legal practice of domestic courts and ensure more effective protection of property rights. The study of the practice of the ECtHR on this topic is an important step for improving the country's legal system and ensuring proper protection of property rights, which is important for the development of society as a whole. The purpose of the research is to study the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding the violation of the right to property in criminal and civil proceedings, as well as the analysis of this practice in order to determine the standards used by the ECtHR when considering cases related to the right to property. The methodological basis of the work consists of general scientific and special methods: the method of analyzing scientific literature, comparative analysis, empirical research methods, system analysis, and legal expertise. The result of the work is research and analysis of the practice of property rights protection in criminal and civil proceedings in accordance with international standards, which will allow to propose possible solutions for improving national practice and legislation in this area.

The article is devoted to study of a procedural mechanism for protection of the constitutional right to property in criminal proceedings in the context of the right to access to justice. It is stated that the European Court of Human Rights, in the light of its judgments, has repeatedly emphasized that “interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property must be carried out in compliance with a ‘fair balance’ between the requirements of the general interest of society and the requirements of protection of fundamental rights of an individual.” It is determined that the inviolability of property rights is one of the basic principles of criminal proceeding. The procedural mechanism of initiation or implementation of other appropriate action by an individual (an owner or a legal user of property) whose property has been temporarily seized (unless this person is a suspect) is analysed in order to protect his or her rights and freedoms, to protect his or her property. In particular, it is argued that an owner or legal user of property, who is not endowed with a different procedural status in criminal proceedings, is another individual whose rights or legitimate interests are restricted during the pre-trial investigation, and who has the right to appeal against inaction, which consists in the failure to return temporarily seized property. The author supports the view that, given the normative content of the adversarial principle, a participant in criminal proceedings, who has filed a complaint, must prove each circumstance set forth in it, and an investigator, a detective, and a prosecutor have the right, since it is not their duty to participate in the court hearing, to refute the arguments of the complaint and justify the legitimacy of their procedural behaviour, and the parties are not deprived of the right to present additional arguments in favour of their position that are not set forth in the complaint or in the contested decision. It is noted that the legislator’s restriction of a person’s right to appeal against an investigating judge’s decision may be justified only in respect of appeals against rulings which do not restrict the fundamental rights defined by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and do not impede access to justice. In other cases, individuals should have the right to appeal the relevant ruling of an investigating judge, as ensuring judicial control over all actions and decisions in criminal proceedings that in any way restrict the rights of a person is essential for the compliance of legislation with European standards.

The relevance of the study is determined by the need to improve mechanisms for the legal protection of property rights in the context of Ukraine's integration into the European legal space and against the backdrop of problems in distinguishing between civil and criminal law remedies. The aim was to identify the intersection of civil and criminal law in the sphere of property rights protection, identify contradictions in law enforcement, and determine areas of convergence in legal approaches. The study used logical-legal, comparative-legal and dogmatic methods, which made it possible to analyse the norms of Ukrainian legislation, decisions of national and international courts and law enforcement practice. The study examined the peculiarities of the implementation of the principle of inviolability of property rights in civil and criminal proceedings and analysed the problems of seizure of property of persons who do not have the procedural status of a suspect or accused. It was established that the current version of the procedural legislation of Ukraine does not ensure an adequate balance of interests of the parties in the case of seizure of property, which leads to a violation of the rights of civil defendants. The peculiarities of the differentiation of coercion in civil and criminal law were identified, and the functions of seizure of property as a means of securing a claim and as a procedural instrument in criminal proceedings were distinguished. The experience of Romania and North Macedonia in protecting property rights in the context of legal convergence was analysed. A conclusion was made about the advisability of adapting certain foreign practices to the Ukrainian context, in particular regarding changes to the procedures for imposing seizure of property and strengthening procedural guarantees. The practical value of the work lies in the fact that its results can be used by judges, lawyers, legislators and law enforcement officials to improve approaches to the protection of property rights and bring national law enforcement practice into line with European standards

The geographic location of Israel and the Palestinian Authorityon the border between Mediterranean and desert climate, and the strong topographic and geomorphological variation resulting from its position on the Great African Rift Valley, combine to sustain a great diversity of landscapes in a very small country. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the protected areas in Israel and the Palestinian Authority adequately represent the range of landscapes and ecosystems in the region. Altogether, we defined 23 natural ecosystem-units in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, of which 17 are terrestrial landscapes and 6 are aquatic systems. In considering the adequacy of coverage in protected areas, we mapped Israel and the Palestinian Authority landscapes according to a set of environmental factors (climatic, geomorphological, geological and botanical) that we believe most effectively distinguish landscape types in this region. When the separation between adjacent units relies on sharp topographic or edaphic change in the landscape, the mapped units can be separated by a clear and sharp line. When adjacent units are actually a gradient of continuous environmental conditions the separation lines relied mostly on botanic characteristics. The main land use categories in this analysis were urban areas, agricultural areas, nature reserves, national parks and forest reserves. For the first time in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, we quantified the different landscape types under the different categories of land use. This process, known as systematic conservation planning, allowed us to detect natural landscapes that are underrepresented in protected areas, and can guide decision makers to establish or improve management for the better representation of biodiversity.