Короткий опис(реферат):
За результатами дослідження автором зроблено висновок, що фактичною підставою
застосування відсторонення від посади є сам факт розслідування обставин злочину з
використанням посади.
Не повинні впливати на рішення про відсторонення від посади такі обставини: тяжкість
учиненого злочину, адже кваліфікація злочину може змінюватись; відсутність у особи статусу
підозрюваного, оскільки позбавлення можливості знищити докази виникає до такого статусу;
наявність у особи дітей тощо, адже таке рішення ухвалюється на короткий строк і не може
шкодити дітям; обмеження прав особи, що є виправданими з погляду публічного інтересу щодо
встановлення дійсних обставин. As a result of the research the author has concluded that the fact
of the investigation into the circumstances of the crime, which was committed with the use of this
position, is the actual basis for the application of removal from office.
Such a conclusion is made based on the fact that once a person has used his position to commit a
crime, he already has a motive to use this position to oppose the investigation, because according to logic,
this is the only chance for him to avoid responsibility. In this regard, amendments to the legislation (Part
2 of Article 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) are proposed in the following wording: The
basis for removal from office is the establishment during an investigation or trial of circumstances under
which a person is reasonably suspected (accused) of committing a crime using this position. In the author’s opinion the following should not be taken into account when making a decision on
removal from office: the severity of the crime, because the qualification of the crime may change; lack of the
person's status as a suspect, because the person's deprivation of the opportunity to destroy evidence occurs
before he acquires such status; the suspended person has children or harm to other persons, because the decision
to suspend him from office is made for a short period of time and cannot significantly harm them. Also,
removal from office does not apply to other persons, and it seems strange to require the investigator to identify
everyone who could be harmed by such a measure. If we talk about the negative impact of removal from office
on other persons, then why not ask the question about such an impact of the conviction of this person.
Logically, it is necessary to refuse her criminal punishment, because it will harm others. The public interest
should dominate here – the effectiveness of the investigation. In connection with this, it is proposed to exclude these circumstances from the legislation
(exclude part 2 from Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine).
