Abstract

The relevance of the study, given the law enforcement practice of the courts of Ukraine and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, based on the coverage of standard decisions, lies in identifying some errors in the pre-trial investigation. Further, the study disclosed the issues related to the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms during the surveillance. The purpose of the study is to identify the main reasons for recognising the evidence obtained during covert investigative action as inadmissible in the course of the trial. The methodological basis of the study is a comparative legal method based on the evaluation approach, a formal legal (dogmatic) method, analysis and synthesis. The study highlights individual papers in the context of the issue under consideration, which allowed disclosing the content of each of the areas and tracing their relationship. Based on the review of judicial practice and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the main reasons for declaring evidence inadmissible are presented and substantiated. In addition, individual court decisions on non-compliance with constitutional human rights and freedoms during such a covert investigative (search) action as surveillance are summarised and characterised. It was proved and argued that authorised bodies that have the right to authorise surveillance must comply with the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is determined in which cases the court may recognise evidence obtained during surveillance as admissible. The ultima ratio principle, which guarantees the observance of constitutional human and civil rights and freedoms during pre-trial investigations, is highlighted separately. A personal opinion on each of the analysed decisions is formulated, considering national and international legislation. The practical value lies in the fact that the results of the study allow the prosecution to avoid mistakes during the collection of evidence in criminal proceedings.