PROBLEMAL ISSUES ON THE ARREST OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED DURING THE SEARCH AND DETERMINING ITS STATUS

Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that no one can be unlawfully deprived of his / her property rights. According to Art. 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, no one may be deprived of his property except in the interests of society and under the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. These and other regulations justify the need for detailed regulation of the procedure for the use of property seizure as a measure of criminal proceedings. In this context, an important aspect of criminal proceedings is the search for a proper balance between private and public interests, the creation of preconditions for persons who own property to exercise their powers over their property and, at the same time, to achieve the objectives of criminal proceedings. At present, the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine does not sufficiently regulate the implementation of such a constitutional basis of pre-trial criminal proceedings as the inviolability of property rights during a series of investigative (investigative) and vague investigative (investigative) actions related to the deprivation or restriction of property rights procedural procedure for the use of property seized, both on the basis of a court decision and without it. In particular, this applies to such investigative (search) activity as a search. This article is dedicated to investigating the problem of seizure of property seized during a search. In the context, attention is paid to determining the legal status of property seized during a search carried out on the basis of the investigative judge's order and to distinguish between criminal proceedings and investigative (investigative) actions carried out on the basis of a court order. The problems that arise with the identification of certain items seized during the search as physical evidence and subsequently the possibility of returning them to the rightful owner are considered. In conclusion, the authors propose key provisions for solving problems of seizure of confiscated property during and without a search of a court order.