HARMONIZATION OF UKRAINIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WITH EUROPEAN STANDARDS OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN THE CONTEXT OF COUNTERING CORRUPTION

Abstract

The article examines the main problems of access to justice, the Ukrainian criminal justice system and its main shortcomings, and the understanding of the concept of “access to justice”. It analyzes the current state of access to justice in Ukrainian criminal proceedings and identifies areas for harmonization with European standards, particularly in the field of anti-corruption. In addition, the main standards of access to justice are identified using specific cases from the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, these include the independence and impartiality of the court; the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time; equality of the parties and adversarial proceedings; the right to effective defense and access to case materials; and the reasonableness of court decisions.The authors note that in the process of European integration, Ukraine is obliged to harmonize its legislation with the Copenhagen criteria, which define the rule of law as one of the main conditions for membership in the European Union, and in this context, she highlights some of the EU's requirements. The authors also conclude that harmonizing Ukrainian criminal procedure with European standards of access to justice requires a systematic approach that encompasses both improving the legislative framework and reforming the practice of applying the law. On this basis, they identified the following key areas:1) Harmonization of the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine with the practice of the ECHR. Clear procedural guarantees must be established: equality of the parties, the right to access case materials, and the obligation to provide reasoned decisions. 2) Development of judicial practice based on ECHR standards. Ukrainian courts should actively refer to ECHR decisions when ruling on corruption cases. Unify judicial practice by generalizing the decisions of the High Anti- Corruption Court and the Supreme Court to avoid legal uncertainty. 3) Transparency and public control. Open court proceedings in corruption cases (except in cases of state secrecy). Regular publication of analytical reports on the activities of anti-corruption bodies. Involvement of civil society institutions in monitoring court proceedings. 4) Implementation of EU and GRECO (Group of States against Corruption) recommendations into national legislation. Active cooperation with European partners in the training of judges, prosecutors, and lawyers.