They want to cancel case closures due to time limits: how the CPC reform will change the work of lawyers and prosecutors

A new legislative initiative outlined in draft No. 15333 promises to change the structure of pre-trial investigation.

The need to update the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) is justified by the authors of the draft by systemic shortcomings that allow avoiding criminal liability on formal grounds. The main task is to ensure a balance between the rights of participants and the inevitability of punishment. However, the proposed changes affect the most sensitive aspects of the criminal process, such as pre-trial investigation time limits, defense rights, and the powers of the investigative judge.

Abolition of "automatic" case closure

The most controversial change is the exclusion of paragraph 10 of part one of Article 284 of the CPC.

Recall that this paragraph obliged closing criminal proceedings if the pre-trial investigation period expired after the person was notified of suspicion. Instead of automatic case closure by the court or prosecutor under this paragraph, the legislator proposes a different algorithm.

Case closure due to expired investigation time limits, except for serious and especially serious crimes against life and health, is proposed to be carried out directly by the prosecutor.

If the time limits expire and the prosecutor does not close the case, does not file an indictment with the court, or does not open the materials under Article 290 of the CPC, the defense side or the victim gains the right to file a motion to oblige the prosecutor to resolve the issue of ending the pre-trial investigation.

This motion is considered by the investigative judge of the local court, or the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) in corruption cases, within 5 days. If the court satisfies the motion, it issues a ruling that directly obliges the prosecutor to make a final decision — either to close the case, send it to court, or open the materials.

Extension of investigation time limits

The draft changes the procedure for extending investigation time limits (Article 294 CPC).

The maximum investigation period for especially serious crimes in complex proceedings, for example, requiring international cooperation, can be up to 18 months. At the same time, the procedure for extending time limits has changed.

Up to 3 months — extension is granted by the head of the district/regional prosecutor's office or the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) for HACC cases.

Up to 6 months — by the head of the regional prosecutor's office or the head of SAPO (previously done by the investigative judge).

Up to 12 months — by the Prosecutor General or his deputies, including the head of SAPO.

Only the extension up to 18 months remains within the competence of the investigative judge upon a motion agreed at the highest level.

This approach significantly simplifies the procedure for the prosecution side to extend pre-trial investigation time limits while reducing the scope of judicial control over the relevant decisions of prosecutors.

New role of the investigative judge

Amendments to Article 28 of the CPC of Ukraine detail the function of the investigative judge. While the current version assigns ensuring reasonable time limits to the prosecutor, investigative judge, and court within their general competencies, the draft specifies that the investigative judge ensures judicial control over the observance of rights, freedoms, and interests of persons in criminal proceedings within reasonable time limits.

Moreover, the investigative judge is granted the powers of the presiding judge in court sessions provided by Articles 321 and 330 of the CPC. This means expanding the investigative judge's powers to maintain proper order in court sessions, limit speeches unrelated to the substance of the matter, and promptly respond to violations of order. The idea is to reduce the duration of sessions at the pre-trial investigation stage, where previously consideration of an ordinary motion for a search or property arrest could turn into multi-hour debates.

Procedural spam and insults in motions

One of the changes is the addition of a new paragraph to Article 132 of the CPC of Ukraine. The draft law provides that if a motion to apply measures to secure criminal proceedings is submitted repeatedly on the same grounds without indicating new circumstances, the investigative judge or court has the right to leave such a motion without consideration.

A similar sanction applies if the motion contains "expressions of an offensive or obscene nature."

This is a response to the widespread tactic when courts receive identical appeals aiming to assign the case to a desired judge. However, there is a risk here, as the boundary between new circumstances and old grounds is often subjective, which may lead to discretion.

Systematic absences of lawyers

The new version of Article 49 of the CPC proposes that in case of systematic (two or more times in a row) failure to appear without valid reasons by a defense lawyer who was properly notified, the involvement by the investigator, prosecutor, or court of a defense lawyer appointed through the free legal aid system for protection is allowed.

This aims to speed up the consideration of urgent motions.

Time limits for preventive measures

Article 194 of the CPC changes the approach to the duration of obligations imposed on the suspect. Obligations provided in points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 of part five, such as appearing upon first summons, not leaving the locality, notifying about change of residence, surrendering a foreign passport, etc., may now be imposed for a period not exceeding six months.

At the same time, other obligations, for example, wearing an electronic bracelet, remain within two months with the possibility of extension. This should reduce the burden on prosecutors.

Military service and suspension of proceedings

The draft clarifies the rules for suspending proceedings regarding persons drafted into the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Article 335 CPC).

The court suspends proceedings only if it is established that the person cannot participate in sessions, including via videoconference, due to direct involvement in combat operations.

Such circumstances must be confirmed by a combat order or an order from the commander of the military unit.

Prospects

The abolition of automatic case closure after expiration of time limits significantly weakens the procedural consequences of the prosecution's failure to comply with legally established time frames. The new mechanism for appealing the prosecutor's inaction regarding the expiration of time limits will add a huge amount of technical work to investigative judges, which was previously performed by the prosecutor himself.

For businesses and citizens, these changes mean that the status of a suspect may last much longer, and some procedural defense tools may become less effective. Despite the stated goal of combating abuses and delays in criminal proceedings, some provisions of the draft law may significantly alter the balance between investigation efficiency and procedural guarantees for the defense side. That is why the document will likely become one of the most controversial criminal procedure draft laws in recent years.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay updated on the most important events.