The relevance of the topic lay in the need to ensure a fair trial in criminal cases, which is a fundamental guarantee of human rights and justice. The study focused on the general conditions governing criminal proceedings, which ensure the proper participation of the parties in the proceedings and the observance of the procedural rights. To achieve this aim, an analysis was conducted of legislative provisions, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the judicial practice of the Republic of Moldova. The main conditions for ensuring the participation of the parties in the judicial process were examined, in particular the equality of the parties, the principle of adversarial proceedings, and the right to defence. It was found that failure to meet these conditions may lead to a breach of the principles of fair trial and affect the outcome of the proceedings. It was established that it was important to comply with the requirements regarding the proper summons of participants in the proceedings, ensuring equal opportunities to present evidence and participate in its examination. The role of the court in ensuring the fairness of the proceedings was also analysed, particularly in the context of maintaining a balance between the prosecution and the defence. It was found that the judge’s active participation in maintaining adversarial proceedings and assisting the parties during the process is essential to ensuring that the rights of each party are upheld. Furthermore, it was established that failure to comply with procedural rules, such as the proper notification of parties to the proceedings, can have serious consequences for the fairness of the proceedings, including the annulment of court decisions. It was concluded that failure to comply with these conditions could result in serious violations of the rights of the parties to the proceedings, requiring the court’s intervention to ensure a balance of the parties’ rights and obligations. The practical value of the work lay in the fact that its findings could be used by judges, solicitors and legal practitioners to improve law enforcement practice and ensure appropriate conditions for criminal proceedings, in accordance with international human rights standards

This article analyzes the institution of preclusion as a sanction for the untimely exercise of procedural rights. A comparative legal analysis of approaches in German, Commonwealth and Russian law is provided. The author distinguishes between preclusion (associated with the omission of a deadline) and estoppel (associated with bad faith) and proposes enshrining a clear preclusive provision in Russian procedural codes to encourage proactive and timely action by parties.

ABSTRACT While citizenship by investment (CBI) schemes are a relatively recent phenomenon, debates regarding the instrumentalisation of nationality have existed ever since this institution became broadly established in the nineteenth century. This is due to the fact that nationality does not only impact the relations between individuals and states, but also between states. As the European Commission noted with respect to CBI schemes, the attribution of nationality by a state carries consequences with respect to other states. Notably, nationality entitles a state to invoke the responsibility of another state through diplomatic protection, and enables individuals to bring direct claims against states under international investment agreements. This article shows how the conferral of nationality upon individuals can have major implications not only for the procedural rights of these individuals, notably as investors, but also for the territorial sovereignty and integrity of states. Placing the restrictive 1955 definition of nationality given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Nottebohm within its historical and contemporary context, it explains how the limits occasionally placed by international courts and tribunals on the international effects caused by the attribution of nationality were reactions to the use of the latter as an interventionist tool.

It is indicated that the right to a fair trial is a conventional and procedural right of a person accused of committing a criminal offense. An element of this right is the right to have the case heard by an independent and impartial (impartial) court established by law (Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 21 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). This article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of the implementation and enforcement of the right to a fair trial in special criminal proceedings. The focus is on the right to have a case heard by an independent and impartial court, as established by law in criminal proceedings based on agreements and in criminal proceedings in absentia. The article provides a detailed analysis of the practice of the Cassation Criminal Court on these issues and presents doctrinal arguments regarding the existing legal positions. It is concluded that in criminal proceedings based on agreements in situations where one of the defendants has entered into a plea agreement approved by the court, and the other defendant or defendants are being tried in the ordinary manner, an impartial observer may have doubts about the impartiality of the court if the entire court or some of the judges are participating in both proceedings. The presence/absence of doubt will depend on the connection between the actions of the defendants, the specifics of the criminal offense and the factual circumstances, as well as the nature of the description of the factual circumstances and the involvement of the uncondemned person in the judgment based on the agreement. Accordingly, in the event of a challenge or such arguments in appeals and cassation complaints, all these circumstances must be assessed in the light of the legal positions of the ECHR in the cases of Mucha v. Slovakia and Meng v. Germany. It is argued that in proceedings in absentia, the defense counsel, in accordance with Part 4 of Article 46 of the CPC of Ukraine, may exercise the procedural right of the accused, whom he or she is defending, to initiate a collegial review of the criminal proceedings in the court of first instance in accordance with Part 2 of Article 31 of the CPC of Ukraine, if the criminal proceedings are conducted in the absence of the accused (in absentia). Depriving him of this opportunity makes the defendant’s right to a collegial court in proceedings in absentia illusory and threatens the effectiveness of the defense.

It is indicated that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, being the only body of constitutional jurisdiction in the state, performs a key function in guaranteeing the supremacy of the Basic Law and protecting human rights and freedoms. The legal positions formulated by the Court in its decisions and conclusions acquire fundamental importance for the functioning of the entire legal system, because they outline the constitutionally acceptable boundaries of the interpretation and application of regulatory legal acts. At the same time, it is the sphere of criminal proceedings, where the issue of restricting the rights of the individual arises most acutely, demonstrates the special importance of the acts of the body of constitutional jurisdiction, since it is in criminal proceedings that constitutional guarantees of human rights are most severely tested in practice. The article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the influence of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the resolution of certain categories of criminal cases. The legalnature of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as a key element of the national legal system, which ensures the unity of interpretation and application of constitutional norms by all subjects of legal relations, is analyzed. It is established that despite the absence of a legal definition of this concept in the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, legal positions have an established doctrinal justification and perform a quasi-normative function, obliging all participants in legal relations to be guided by constitutional and legal interpretation. The peculiarities of the influence of acts of a body of constitutional jurisdiction on criminal proceedings are studied, where the issues of restricting the rights and freedoms of an individual are the most acute, and constitutional guarantees are subject to the strictest practical verification. It is substantiated that courts of general jurisdiction, when administering justice, are obliged to take into account the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine when qualifying acts, determining the limits of criminal liability and ensuring the procedural rights of participants in criminal proceedings. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated December 29, 1999 No. 11-rp/99 on the recognition of the death penalty as unconstitutional as a defining example of the influence of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on criminal law and the humanization of the criminal policy of the state in general. It is proved that this decision, based on the provisions of Articles 3, 21, 22, 27 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as well as on European standards for the protection of human rights, not only completed the fulfillment of Ukraine’s obligations to the Council of Europe, but also laid the foundation for the further development of humanistic principles in criminal law, which was reflected in the adoption of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine in 2001 without the death penalty among the types of punishment.

The article provides a comprehensive scholarly analysis of the phenomenon of excessive formalism in administrative adjudication in Ukraine under martial law. The author proceeds from the premise that formalism is an inherent feature of procedural law; however, its excessive manifestation poses a real threat to access to justice, the effective protection of human rights, and compliance with the principle of the rule of law. It is argued that excessive formalism constitutes a form of unlawful and concealed restriction of human rights, which arises not from the operation of legal norms as such, but from the manner in which judicial proceedings are conducted, in particular through rigid and inflexible interpretation of procedural rules without due consideration of the specific circumstances of the case and the actual ability of the parties to participate in the proceedings. Special attention is paid to the impact of martial law on the exercise of procedural rights and to changes in the standards for assessing the admissibility of procedural limitations. The scientific novelty of the article lies in substantiating excessive formalism as an independent form of unlawful interference with the right of access to justice, which goes beyond the permissible limitations of human rights as defined by Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Based on an analysis of the case-law of the Supreme Court after 2022, the article concludes that an approach aimed at overcoming excessive formalism is emerging, particularly in cases of a social nature and in disputes related to military service and the social guarantees of servicemen. It is emphasized that under martial law administrative courts should be guided by the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and good faith, ensuring the priority of substantive protection of human rights over formal compliance with procedural requirements. The key findings of the article demonstrate that, during the period of martial law, overcoming excessive formalism should become one of the priorities of the judiciary, as it directly affects effective access to justice, public trust in the judicial system, and the observance of constitutional human rights.

Taking into account the constitutional foundations of justice and the specifics of procedural law, the essence and content of the category of «effectiveness of procedural-legal regulation» are revealed. The factors determining the effectiveness of procedural-legal regulation are identified, and their specificity in the commercial-procedural dimension is substantiated. The role of judicial discretion and judicial activism in the implementation of procedural norms is examined, and their influence on the effectiveness of commercial adjudication and on transaction costs for businesses is clarified. Attention is paid to the analysis of the risks and shortcomings of excessive judicial activism in relation to the principle of legal certainty, the stability of judicial practice, and the effectiveness of procedural-legal regulation. The essence and main content of the functional model of the commercial procedure are substantiated as a methodological alternative to the norm-centric approach to organising judicial proceedings. The main criteria for assessing the effectiveness of commercial procedural norms are determined, oriented toward combining legal and economic-legal indicators, including: the effectiveness of procedural-legal regulation, procedural economy, the dynamism of the judicial process, the optimal balance of the interests of the individual, society, and the state, judicial practice, the guaranteed realization of procedural rights, and the adaptability of procedural-legal norms. Ways and methods for increasing the effectiveness of procedural-legal regulation in commercial adjudication are formulated, taking into account the need for stability of commercial turnover and the contemporary conditions for the administration of justice in Ukraine. It is emphasised that the effectiveness of commercial procedural-legal norms should be assessed using a set of interrelated criteria that reflect not only the normative perfection of procedural regulation but also its practical operability, economic efficiency, and capacity to ensure a balance of interests in commercial relations. Such an approach makes it possible to consider procedural-legal regulation as a functional instrument for ensuring effective commercial adjudication, rather than as a self-sufficient formal construct.

The growth of corporate crime, the increasing complexity of economic relations, as well as states’ international obligations in the field of combating corruption and economic crime have necessitated the recognition of legal entities not merely as objects of criminal-law enforcement, but as independent and full-fledged participants in criminal proceedings, endowed with their own procedural status. The recognition of a legal entity as a full participant in criminal-law and criminal-procedural relations is intrinsically linked to the issue of its procedural autonomy – namely, the capacity of the legal entity to exercise procedural rights and obligations independently of the natural persons acting on its behalf. This issue remains unresolved in many legal systems to this day.

The article examines individual issues related to the definition of the subject of proof of abuse of procedural rights within the framework of arbitration, civil and administrative proceedings. Initially, a general description of legal facts related to the abuse of procedural rights is given, then individual specific cases of abuse of procedural rights are analyzed as elements of the subject of proof in the case. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that legal facts of abuse of procedural rights are included in both the general and local subject of proof in the case.

The paper explores the application of the principle of non-discrimination as a general principle of the EU legal order within the evolving topic of digital rights, with a particular focus on access to effective judicial protection for users. The principle of non-discrimination, as a horizontal tool, should guide the interpretation and application of EU law. As it happened during the past decades for rights of works and equal opportunities, gender related, the principle could be used in the field of digital regulation, particularly in securing procedural rights and effective remedies under Article 47 of the Charter.

This article examines modern approaches to protecting citizens' rights in administrative proceedings in the Russian Federation. The article analyzes theoretical foundations, judicial practice, and international experience, including the German and Austrian models. Particular attention is paid to the problems of formalism and failure to comply with reasonable timeframes in administrative proceedings. The authors emphasize the need to strengthen pre-trial settlement mechanisms and increase the accountability of officials and judges for protracted proceedings. Specific measures are proposed to strengthen sanctions and improve access to justice. The importance of balancing public interests and private rights in the context of the digitalization of administrative procedures is emphasized.

The article analyzes strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) as a form of abuse of procedural rights. It identifies the general characteristics of abuse of procedural rights and examines the SLAPP mechanism as one possible manifestation of such abuse. The article describes the legal values violated when a SLAPP is filed and identifies the legal entities that may bring such actions. It also assesses the objective elements of a SLAPP, namely the act itself, its consequences, the causal link, and other relevant circumstances typical of SLAPP cases. Furthermore, the article evaluates the subjective aspect of a SLAPP claim – specifically, whether such claims can be filed intentionally or through negligence. Finally, the article analyzes anti-SLAPP procedures designed to protect SLAPP victims from SLAPPs. The article evaluates both national and European Union legal measures and their effectiveness in ensuring the right to a fair trial. The study analyzes the draft Civil Procedure Code, which aims to renew the SLAPP mechanism in Lithuania, and evaluates the current court practice in Lithuania regarding SLAPPs, as well as drawing on the experience of foreign countries.

Artificial intelligence makes it possible to review current tax administration procedures to improve efficiency. At the same time, the protection of taxpayer rights cannot be ignored, meaning that special attention must be paid to ensuring that taxpayer rights are upheld when reforming tax administration procedures. The aim of this research is to examine the possible alternatives for introducing artificial intelligence in tax administration procedures from the perspective of taxpayer rights. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that artificial intelligence cannot eliminate tax evasion or tax fraud, but it can reduce the regulatory and tax authority procedural loopholes that create opportunities for tax evasion or tax fraud. Furthermore, artificial intelligence cannot completely transform all tax administration procedures, as there are elements that require the use of human resources and human control (such as the advance tax ruling). Tax procedures supplemented by artificial intelligence tools can contribute to increasing transparency and trust in the tax system, as well as ensuring legal accountability. Based on the results of the research underlying this study, it is clear that the legislator's first task is to transform tax administration procedures based on artificial intelligence, considering the rights of taxpayers, followed by the involvement of the tax authority in order to develop the IT infrastructure in line with the amended legal environment. This could lead to the creation of a legal framework that maintains public trust and strikes a balance between innovation and the fundamental legal protection of taxpayers.

Pre-trial detention has been at the centre of the European Union’s policy debate in the last few years. Suggestions to adopt a set of harmonised rules on pre-trial detention within the EU, so far, have been met with resistance. This article begins with an analysis of the existing body of norms set by the EU procedural rights Directives, suggesting how they could enhance the rights of pre-trial detainees. It is argued that this current piecemeal approach to pre-trial detention in the EU remains deeply dissatisfying. The article then moves on to dissect the limits of EU competences to legislate on this field with a view, in particular, to reduce pre-trial detention. It is suggested that the scope of the Union’s normative intervention can be either functional (instrumental to judicial cooperation and mutual trust) or principled (focused on the rights of persons detained, irrespective of its relevance for inter-state cooperation). The article goes on to analyse the recently adopted European Commission’s Recommendation on pre-trial detention. In doing so, it tests the ability of this text to incorporate ECtHR’s case law into EU law and suggests that the Court of Justice may be nudged to develop a bolder interpretation of secondary legislation in accordance with some guidelines included in the Recommendation. The contribution conclusively reflects on the possible way forward, by discussing the constitutional constraints deriving from a strict reading of Article 82 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and the strategies to get around the main ‘roadblocks’ in the path towards harmonisation and greater protection of fundamental rights behind bars.

Abstract. In the article, the legal nature and issues of the application of the principle of ‘‘estoppel’’ in civil litigation are discussed. It emphasizes the purpose of the principle of estoppel – not to allow, due to inconsistency in its behavior, the receipt of a party’s benefit to the detriment of the other party, which in good faith relied on a certain legal situation created by the first party. Named such well-known types of ‘‘estoppel’’ as: estoppel per rem judicatam – the binding force of a judicial decision in relation to later disputes between parties; estoppel by representation, by virtue of which a party cannot refute a previously made false statement by asking afterwards to occupy a new opposite position; estoppel by deed – if any person from the side begins to fulfill the conditions of the transaction, then afterwards she loses the right to challenge her conditions etc. It is noted that estoppel is actively used by the courts in the consideration and resolution of civil cases. The legal positions of the courts expressed in court rulings on the essence and validity of the principle of ‘‘estoppel’’ (Estoppel). The principle of estoppel is proposed to be fixed in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the authors formulated a definition of the principle of estoppel (Estoppel). A conclusion was made that the principle of ‘‘estoppel’’ represents one of the effective mechanisms for the protection of participants in civil litigation from unscrupulous behavior and abuse of procedural rights.

The legislation of Ukraine provides for the exercise of procedural rights by the parties through the performance of various procedural actions.These actions are

The effective participation of duty counsel in the Plea Leniency System is crucial for safeguarding the legitimate rights of the accused and upholding judicial fairness. Since the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018, this mechanism has become an integral part of plea bargaining proceedings. However, multiple practical challenges persist. This paper argues that the core issue lies in the ambiguous role of duty counsel, who are not explicitly granted the status of defense counsel, resulting in a weak foundation for their procedural rights. Furthermore, inadequate protection of the right to access case files and the right to meet with clients in practice often reduces legal assistance to a mere formality. Additionally, a rigid subsidy mechanism fails to incentivize lawyers to deliver high-quality services. To address these shortcomings, this paper advocates for clarifying the defense counsel status of duty lawyers, systematically establishing pathways to secure their core rights, and implementing a flexible incentive system linked to workload and service quality. Such measures would enhance the effectiveness of their participation, strengthen institutional credibility, and ensure the system functions as intended.

The escalation of sexual violence cases against girls with disabilities has reached a crisis stage, exacerbated by the fragmentation of legal regulations operating sectorally. The failure of the judicial system to respond to the complexity of victim vulnerability frequently creates impunity loopholes, perpetuating victimization practices. This research aims to analyze the legal anatomy of “triple vulnerability” and reconstruct the “Integrated Juridical Trident” model as a harmonization solution for the national penal system. Using a normative juridical research method with statute and conceptual approaches, this study examines the synchronization of norms among Law Number 1 of 2023, Law Number 20 of 2025, and related specific laws. The results prove that the intersection of child, female, and person with disabilities statuses constitutes a juridical determinant automatically triggering the application of the absolute rape offense and state accommodation obligations. The constructed trident model positions Law Number 1 of 2023 as the material legality foundation and Law Number 20 of 2025 as the formal legality foundation, synergized horizontally with Law Number 23 of 2002 as the subject determinant, Law Number 8 of 2016 as the procedural rights guarantor, and Law Number 12 of 2022 as the recovery guarantee. The effectiveness of this model is secured by a precision law enforcement strategy, through the validation of proof of equality between witnesses with disabilities and the application of an absolute prohibition on restorative justice. This study concludes that such system integration is necessary to close legal loopholes and guarantee maximum sentencing certainty for perpetrators of these crimes against humanity.

Complementary Protection in Italian Case Law (2023) – Part II: Procedural Rights, Administrative Practices, and Judicial Trends

Complementary Protection in Italian Case Law (2024): Procedural Rights, Administrative Practices, and Judicial Trends