Introduction: The use of modern advances in medicine to investigate crimes has caused a number of problems that require scientific reflection. In particular, today there are quite acute questions: medical intervention without the person’s consent; forced sampling of human biological materials; clinical methods, the use of which in the biological samples taking will not be regarded as violation of international standards of human rights protection; the correlation of the need for the formation of DNA profile databases and the right of the person to non-disclosure of medical information. The aim: The aim of this work is to identify and analyze the key points of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR) regarding the peculiarities of retention and use of human biological material samples in the investigation of crimes, and the retention of such materials after the completion of the investigation and trial. Materials and methods: In the preparation of the article, scientific works, the provisions of international normative acts regulating the use of human biological materials as well as the practice of the ECHR concerning the use of human biological materials in the investigation of crimes were used (8 decisions were analyzed in which the ECHR concerned the use of biological samples or related issues). In the research process to achieve the goal, a complex of general scientific and special methods of cognition was used, in particular, the comparative legal method, the system and structural method, the method of generalization, the method of analysis and synthesis, etc. Review: The positions of the ECHR concerning the following were distinguished and generalized: a) the criteria for the permissibility of compulsory medical intervention for taking of human biological material within the framework of the crime investigation; b) the possibilities of spreading the right not to incriminate oneself on the compulsory taking of human biological materials samples; c) the retention features of cell samples and DNA information in the context of respect for the right to non-interference in the person’s private life. Conclusions: Obtaining and using the human material for the investigation of crimes are not a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter – the Convention), subject to the requirements stated in the practice of the ECHR.

The urgency of the article stated in the article is due to the need to revise traditional scientific views on certain peculiarities of criminal procedural evidence in connection with the expansion of the adversarial nature of domestic criminal proceedings. The purpose of the paper is to determine the essence of the category ‘burden of proof’ and justify the necessity of introducing it into scientific and law enforcement circulation. The main approach to the study of this problem was to carry out a critical analysis of the norms of the current criminal procedural legislation that regulates the requirements regarding the burden of proof and the views expressed on their proper understanding and application. The publication expresses the view that the distinction between such legal categories as ‘burden of proof’ and ‘burden of proof’ is proposed, the definition of the concept of ‘burden of proof’ is proposed and the rules for burden sharing between parties of criminal proceedings are analyzed. The material of the article represents both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further research into the essence of the concept of ‘burden of proof’, as well as for proper understanding and enforcement of criminal procedural law enforcement activities.

The aim: The aim of this work is to identify the compliance level of modern practice of placement of a person in a medical institution in order to conduct the FPE to international standards and legal positions of the ECHR in terms of ensuring the right to liberty and security of person; formulation of scientifically substantiated proposals on the synchronization directions of national practices with the specified international standards. Materials and methods: During the preparation of the article the following was processed: scientific research on ensuring the rights of persons suffering from mental disorders in criminal proceedings; provisions of international agreements on the provision of psychiatric care; legal positions of the ECHR on the observance of persons’ rights suffering from mental disorders (15 judgments on this topic); criminal procedural legislation of individual states; results of generalization of national law enforcement practice; the results of a survey conducted by the authors of 18 psychiatrists who practice in the field of forensic psychiatric examinations (psychiatrists working in state psychiatric clinics in Odesa, Poltava, Kharkiv were interviewed). In the process of research a set of general scientific and special methods of cognition was used (comparative-legal method, system-structural method, generalization method, method of analysis and synthesis, method of sociological research, method of expert assessments, etc.). Results: According to the research results: a) legal positions of the ECHR on the observance of the rights of persons suffering from mental disorders are identified and generalized; b) the compliance level of modern practice of placing a person in a medical institution in order to conduct the FPE with international standards and legal positions of the ECHR in terms of ensuring the right to liberty and security of person (§ 1 of Article 5 of the Convention); c) the degree of extrapolation of these positions to the activities of psychiatrists is analyzed; d) the optimal ways of solving the existing problems in the aspect of ensuring the rights of a person when placing them in a medical institution for an inpatient FPE are proposed. Conclusions: The current national practice of placing a person in a medical institution for an inpatient FPE does not fully comply with the legal positions of the ECHR in terms of ensuring the right to liberty and security of person (in particular, there are deviations from the positions of the ECHR on: determining the documentary basis for the appointment of an inpatient FPE; interaction of police and medical workers in the field of psychiatry during the detention of a person with a mental disorder).

No abstract

Введение. Несоблюдение правил конкурентной борьбы часто представляет собой нарушение чужих прав интеллектуальной собственности или их неправомерное использование самими управомоченными субъектами. Проблематика. Вышеизложенное порождает блок проблем, связанных с обеспечением защиты экономической конкуренции и одновременной охраной прав интеллектуальной собственности, а также с недопущением злоупотребления последними, которое часто приводит к ограничению конкуренции. Цель. Изучение законодательного регулирования защиты экономической конкуренции и интеллектуальной собственности как на национальном, так и на международном уровнях, взаимодействия и согласованности конкурентного законодательства и законодательства в сфере прав на результаты интеллектуальной деятельности. Материалы и методы. Информационную основу исследования составили законодательство Украины и международно-правовые акты, а также практика национальных судов Украины, Суда ЕС и административная практика Европейской Комиссии. Методологической основой служили методы исторического, диалектического, системного и логического исследования, формально-юридический метод, метод сравнительного правоведения. Результаты. Установлена взаимосвязь между конкурентным правом и правом интеллектуальной собственности, выявлены последствия нарушения баланса между ними (создание монополий, дробление внутреннего рынка, стагнация рынка), предложены пути избежания указанных негативних последствий. Выводы. В основе законодательного регулирования защиты экономической конкуренции и осуществления прав интеллектуальной собственности должна лежать модель, в соответствии с которой конкурентное поведение предполагает соблюдение чужих прав интеллектуальной собственности, в свою очередь, поведение обладателей таких прав не приводит к ограничению конкуренции и нарушению прав потребителей. К л ю ч е в ы е с л о в а: интеллектуальная собственность, инновации, недобросовестная конкуренция, антимонопольное регулирование, ограничение экономической конкуренции, результаты интеллектуальной деятельности.