Review

After the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in 2012, there is an essential decrease in the number of operational procurements conducted by the units of the National Police. As a result, the effectiveness of detecting and investigating the facts of illegal sale of items which are prohibited for circulation. One of the reasons for this situation is the imperfection of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Purpose of the article: disclosure of disadvantages Part 3 of Art. 271 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and research of their influence on the state of application of operational procurements.

Taking into account the practice of The European Court of Human Rights proposed criteria for distinguishing legitimate actions of police officers during the operational procurements from illegal, when there is provocation (incitement) to commit a crime. It has been found out that it is not provocative (incitement) to show the buyer's initiative in acquiring certain items during an operational procurement, when there are reasonable grounds to consider that the person concerned is preparing or committing a crime and it will be commit regardless of the actions of the buyer. In this case, the purpose to show a buyer's initiative is not to incitement a person to commit illegal sale, but direction of the behavior of this person in the way of the hidden fixation of his illegal actions. Such actions can not be recognized as a violation of item 1 of Art. 6 of The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the evidence obtained on the results of operational procurement is admissibile according to Art. 86, 87 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Proved that due to the excessive accumulation separate sentences and phrases, the current version of Part 3 of Art. 271 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine allows the possibility of a distorted interpretation of the term "provoke (incite)", which determines the expediency of its wording more clearly according to the fundamental decisions of The European Court of Human Rights.

Key words: control over the commission of a crime, operational procurement, provocation (incitement) to commit a crime, admissibility of evidence.