TEXTUALISM AS A CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL FUNCTION OF THE COURT

Abstract

The authors proved that national courts are authorized to interpret criminal procedural norms, because: – introducing into its activity the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which in accordance with its statute interprets the norms of national legislation, national courts also interpret these norms; – norms of Art. 380 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are considered by the authors as an indication of the court's duty to interpret certain norms to which the court refers in its decision. Examples of judicial interpretation are given: 1) the resolution of the panel of judges of the Judicial Chamber in criminal cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated December 23, 2003 interpreted the norms of Art. 44 of the CPC of 1960; 2) The Second Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court dated January 29, 2019 in case No. 466/896/17 (proceedings No. 51-7759km18), and then the United Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in case No. 663/820/ 15-k from 06.12.2021 carried out a systematic interpretation of the procedural norms, clause 3, part 2, article 40, article 236 of the CPC of Ukraine. Conclusions were made: 1) the interpretation of criminal procedural norms is the duty of the court and the main direction of its activity, which is called a function in the theory of the criminal process; 2) the court in criminal proceedings performs a criminal procedural function, which was called "Textualism", which is the court's interpretation of criminal procedural norms. According to the authors, textualism is of particular importance for ensuring human rights, because it essentially determines their content and boundaries.