There is always a tendency in law that there is no way a society can exist without a crime commission, as a society without crime is like a human being without blood. Even though the crime commission has become a common phenomenon in a given society, its reduction and prevention are very imperative for the interest and well-being of the society. Every society that is regulated by a legitimate setup has the responsibility in ensuring the peace and security of this society by taking relevant measures in reducing the rate of crime committed in that society. The problem we face here remains that even though with all the laudable efforts of the various law enforcement agencies and organs in Ukraine, it is still practically difficult and impossible in preventing crime commissions in the country, and there still exists a continuous increase rate of crimes committed in the country. This constant increase in crime commission has provoked a doubt in the mind of many as the customary objective of the society is that of crime prevention. In answering this critical controversy that has surrounded the state of Ukraine as to problem affecting the prevention of crime, it will be proper for us to examine some of those justifications posed that have made it difficult for the State of Ukraine and other law enforcement officials in combating and preventing crimes in the country. It is therefore this backdrop that we think something needs to be done by the State of Ukraine to use all the appropriate measures in ensuring security and social order in the society.

No abstract

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts "intellectual property" and "right of intellectual property", as well as to the possibility to use them as equivalent concepts. The author considers the features of a broad understanding of the intellectual property concept, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. According to this approach intellectual relations are only one type of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which only occasionally acts as the subject of legal regulation. Taking into account the above facts, the difference between the meaning of the concepts "intellectual property" (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and "intellectual property right" is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determined on the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc.; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept "object of intellectual property rights" is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights. The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in socio-philosophical sense that satisfies the social, economic, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense, an object by its nature is a blessing for a person; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statuses and roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept "intellectual property" as identical with the concept “intellectual property right” is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concepts of “intellectual property” and “intellectual property right” have the same sense in the legislation and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights to such objects.

The article reveals the features of the notary's performance of the function of providing evidence in a criminal proceeding based on a comparative analysis of the proposed changes to the notary legislation in Ukraine and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the State of Arizona (USA). It was concluded that the notarial act of “providing evidence”, which the Ukrainian legislator proposes to add to the list of notarial acts, consists in certifying by the notary of the data (information) provided, which can be carried out in various ways (by documenting, inspecting certain objects, video- and audio recording, etc.). Thus, the provision of evidence as a notarial act has signs of novelty both in terms of content (as it consists in the attestation of information by a notary) and in the way of performing the relevant notarial procedure (by inspecting certain objects, making video and audio recordings, etc.). In US legislation, we see a different approach of the legislator. In particular, it is possible to single out the following features of establishing the function of a notary public to provide evidence in criminal proceedings under the criminal law of the state of Arizona: А) The status of an affidavit certified by a notary public or another competent person as a document that is evidence in criminal proceedings is defined directly in the criminal law regulations. B) In certain cases provided for by law, the statement of facts related to criminal proceedings must be made by drawing up a document certified by a notary public or another competent person. C) The criminal law regulations define the procedural consequences of drawing up a document that is used as evidence in criminal proceedings. In comparing the approaches of the legislator of Ukraine and the USA to enshrining in the legislation the notary's powers to perform the function of providing evidence, it is worth paying attention to the following aspects. The proposed changes to the legislation of Ukraine on the notarial office relate exclusively to special norms regarding the performance of notarial acts and consist in granting the notary the right to perform an additional type of notarial certification of facts, namely, the fact that a person has provided certain information. At the same time, such changes are not ensured by corresponding changes in procedural and material norms of criminal, civil, economic legislation, etc. In the USA, on the other hand, the legislator focuses on the function of the notary in providing evidence by providing for the special legal status of the notarial document and its probative value directly in the criminal law regulations (which often also regulate issues of a procedural nature). At the same time, the procedure for performing notarial acts does not change. It was concluded that the approach provided for in the legislation of the United States of America is effective to consolidate the function of the notary in providing evidence, which is built with the help of the following basic legal structures: 1) provision in the criminal law and procedural norms of the special status of the notarial document; 2) determination of the notarial form of some procedural documents; 3) specification of the procedural consequences that arise for participants in criminal proceedings in case of drawing up/submitting or not submitting the corresponding document in notarized form; 4) provision in the criminal law regulations, which provide for criminal liability for giving false testimony, cases of giving false or contradictory testimony precisely when drawing up a notarial document, which is a document-evidence in a certain case. It was determined that the effective performance of this function by a notary of Ukraine should be ensured by the relevant provisions of special procedural and other legislation, in particular: a) changes to procedural norms (criminal procedural legislation, civil procedural legislation, etc.) regarding the possibility of securing evidence by a notary, as well as determining the legal status , the probative value of a notarial document (deed on provision of evidence, etc.) and the procedure for its use in the relevant court process or other proceedings; b) amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the establishment of criminal liability for providing false testimony or providing false information (data) to a notary when he performs the function of providing evidence; c) provision of a notarial form for certain types of procedural documents submitted as evidence of the presence/absence of certain circumstances, facts, etc. in the relevant categories of court cases and other proceedings.

У статті проведено аналіз кримінально-правових положень зарубіжних країн, які відображають основні нетипові форми посягань на об’єкти права інтелектуальної власності. Автором визначено, що основні нетипові форми посягань на об’єкти права інтелектуальної власності визначені у кримінально-правових нормах, які передбачають відповідальність за: 1) діяння, пов’язані із підробленням і незаконним отриманням прав на об’єкт права інтелектуальної власності; 2) діяння, пов’язані із незаконним володінням об’єктом та ненаданням інформації щодо незаконно створеного об’єкта; 3) діяння, пов’язані із введенням в оману споживача щодо об’єкта права інтелектуальної власності; 4) діяння, пов’язані із незаконним наданням і отриманням доступу до об’єкта права інтелектуальної власності; 5) посягання на об’єкти права інтелектуальної власності, що розцінюються як крадіжки об’єктів права власності; 6) діяння, що посягають на об’єкти, які не підлягають правовій охороні у більшості країн світу; 7) діяння, пов’язані із перешкоджанням реалізації законних прав суб’єкта права інтелектуальної власності; 8) діяння, що полягають у обмеженні прав суб’єкта права інтелектуальної власності на отримання винагороди; 9) діяння, які полягають у спричиненні фізичних змін об’єктам права інтелектуальної власності (знищення, руйнування, пошкодження, понівечення). З’ясовано, що інтелектуальна, або нематеріальна, власність розглядається законодавцем Сполученого Королівства Великої Британії на Північної Ірландії як різновид права власності. Саме нематеріальна власність включає в себе патенти та авторські права. З огляду на це особа, яка здійснила присвоєння законного права іншої особи, підлягає кримінальній відповідальності за крадіжку права інтелектуальної власності. Водночас особа, яка порушує авторські права, не вчиняє крадіжки. Це пояснюється тим, що така особа не присвоює собі авторського права. Вона порушує авторське право. Отже, така особа зобов’язана відшкодувати усі збитки у межах цивільно-правового спору, але не може підлягати відповідальності за крадіжку.