The issue of compliance with the provisions of article 284, part 1, paragraph 10
of the Criminal Procedure Code (or why it is important to distinguish between
the rules for calculating procedural deadlines and the rules for the entry
into force of the provisions of normative legal acts), the impossibility
of retroactive effect, and aspects of its application in the case of submitting
a charge to the court outside the pre-trial investigation period
Authors: Basysta I. , Yosyfovych D. 
Published: December 2023

Purpose. The purpose of the research is to provide answers to the questions regarding the date of entry into force of the provisions of Article 284, Part 1, Paragraph 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the probability of retroactive effect of this Paragraph, based on the distinction between the rules for calculating procedural terms and the rules for the entry into force of the provisions of normative legal acts. Among the procedural prerequisites of the problem, the situation in which it is possible to raise the question of whether the prosecution has submitted an indictment to the court outside the period of the pre-trial investigation defined by Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the affirmative answer to which will be the basis for making a procedural decision to close the criminal proceedings in accordance with Paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In the opposite case, when the answer is generally negative, since, for example, the disclosure of materials to the other party resulted in the prosecution submission of the indictment to the court within the pre-trial investigation period, the procedural ground for applying the specified procedural ground for closing the criminal proceedings in accordance with the aforementioned Paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine will disappear.
Methodology. The authors used the analysis and synthesis of current and expired provisions of legal acts with the relevant arguments of such discourse; scientific approaches and conclusions on the application of legal norms and on the understanding and interpretation of certain concepts; induction and deduction in formulating the authors’ own conclusions. The systemic-structural and functional methods were used in the course of the scientific research.
Results. It is grounded that substitution of concepts should not be allowed, in particular, instead of referring to the general conditions and existing rules for the entry into force of the provisions of law, the elements regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine or, in general, the algorithms for calculating procedural deadlines should be applied. It is proved that the title of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and its content relate to "disclosure of materials to the other party", and not only to disclosure of pre-trial investigation materials. This belief leads to the conclusion that the period for the prosecution to familiarize itself with the materials disclosed to it by the defense should be excluded from the pre-trial investigation period provided for in Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Scientific novelty and practical significance. The judicial practice regarding the declared issues can be divided into two opposing "currents", as can the scientific research of young scholars and well-known proceduralists. It was believed that the next decision of the joint chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court would contain comprehensive conclusions on the above-mentioned range of issues. But unfortunately... An attempt has been made to present some of the authors’ thoughts on scientific and procedural arguments which are somewhat different from those contained in the decision of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court dated September 11, 2023.