IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOTIFICATION OBLIGATION REGARDING COVERT INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS IN UKRAINE: ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 253 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IN THE LIGHT OF EUROPEAN STANDARDS

Abstract

This article provides a thorough analysis of the problem of implementing the duty to notify persons subjected to covert investigative (surveillance) measures as prescribed by the criminal procedure law of Ukraine. It examines the legal nature of the notification institution as a crucial element of the system of guarantees protecting private life and procedural fairness and demonstrates its role in restoring procedural equilibrium after intrusion into the individual sphere. The study analyzes domestic case law, notably the Supreme Court’s positions, which emphasize the need to observe the principle of timely notification while acknowledging that, in certain cases, breaches of formal notification procedures do not necessarily render collected evidence inadmissible. It also reviews European Court of Human Rights precedents that have enshrined the “notification plus the possibility to challenge” approach as a basic protection mechanism against uncontrolled intrusions into private life and as a guarantee of effective judicial oversight. A comparative analysis of regulation in Germany, France, and Poland shows that the combination of judicial control, fixed notification deadlines, and compensation mechanisms creates a broader set of safeguards against abuse. In these legal systems there are concrete accountability instruments for officials, procedures for automatic or court-ordered notification, and effective avenues for administrative and civil redress and compensation. The comparative conclusion indicates that Ukrainian regulation is insufficiently effective: the lack of clearly defined liability for failure to notify, unclear procedures for deferring notification, and limited judicial oversight increase the risk of purely formal compliance with guarantees and hinder access to fair compensation for persons whose rights have been violated. Based on this analysis, the article substantiates the need for systemic legislative reforms aimed at aligning national procedure with European standards. Key reform directions are proposed: define legal consequences for failure to notify; introduce disciplinary and administrative liability for officials; create a mechanism for automatic court notification; clearly regulate grounds and time-limits for deferring notification with mandatory judicial review; and ensure an effective compensation system. These measures would enhance the transparency of covert investigative procedures and strengthen real guarantees for the protection of human rights in the criminal process.