AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTROL OF A PLACE: PROCEDURAL LIMITS AND GUARANTEES OF PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Abstract

The article examines Article 270 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulates audio and video monitoring of a place as a type of covert investigative (search) action. Three issues are central to the analysis: the legal content of this action, its distinction from adjacent covert measures, and the conditions under which the recorded materials may be used as admissible evidence. The key premise is that a publicly accessible place does not automatically eliminate privacy expectations. For that reason, judicial authorization under Article 270 of the CPC of Ukraine cannot be reduced to a routine procedural step. The investigating judge has to verify the gravity of the offence, the link between the chosen place and the subject matter of proof, the impossibility of obtaining the same information by a less intrusive method, and the proportionality of interference. The paper argues that Article 270 should not be merged in practice with Articles 260, 267, or 269 of the CPC, because these measures differ in their object, spatial scope, and procedural purpose. Separate attention is given to the recording of results, their transfer to the prosecutor, disclosure to the defence, and judicial assessment of admissibility. The study shows that the weakest points in practice are overly broad motions, vague characterisation of the place, substitution of one covert action for another, and delayed disclosure of the documents that formed the legal basis of the interference. It is concluded that audio and video monitoring of a place remains a lawful evidentiary tool only where its limits are clearly defined at the stage of judicial authorization and the defence later receives a genuine opportunity to challenge the legality and reliability of the collected materials. The source base includes the Constitution of Ukraine, the European Convention on Human Rights, the CPC of Ukraine, the 2012 interagency Instruction, scholarly publications, and Supreme Court practice materials.


References

1. Kuchynska, O. P., Fulei, T. I., Baryshnikov, V. V., et al. Commentary on Judicial Practice in Criminal Proceedings / ed. by V. H. Honcharenko, O. V. Kaplina. Kyiv, 2020.
2. Leonov, B. D., Chelpan, Yu. V., Stepanov, V. A. Concept and Features of Audio and Video Surveillance of a Place. Legal Scientific Electronic Journal. 2021. No. 6. Pp. 258–264.
3. Kikinchuk, V. V. Review of Judicial Practice on Conducting Covert Investigative (Search) Actions. Bulletin of the Criminological Association of Ukraine. 2024. Vol. 32. No. 2. Pp. 710–724.
4. Pohoretskyi, M. A., Iskenderov, E. F. The Role of the Prosecutor in Conducting Covert Investigative (Search) Actions. Bulletin of Criminal Proceedings. 2022. No. 3–4. Pp. 47–58.
5. Hloviuk, I., Zavtur, V., Zinkovskyi, I., Pavlyk, L. Justification of the Legitimacy of Restricting Human Rights in Ukraine during Pre-Trial Investigation. Social and Legal Studios. 2024. Vol. 7. No. 2. Pp. 130–139.
6. Skrypnyk, A., Titko, I. Proportionality of Interference and Balance of Public and Private Interests in Covert Evidence Gathering in Criminal Proceedings. Theory and Practice of Jurisprudence. 2024. No. 2 (26). Pp. 161–181.
7. Babikov, O. Admissibility of Evidence Obtained during Covert Investigative (Search) Actions outside Pre-Trial Investigation in Criminal Proceedings. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law. 2022. No. 12. Pp. 47–51.
8. Kovalenko, V. V. Criminal Procedural Means of Examining Evidence in Proceedings before an Investigating Judge. Visegrad Journal on Human Rights. 2024. No. 3. Pp. 108–114.
9. Supreme Court. Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court on Disclosure of Materials to the Other Party. 2025.
10. Serhieieva, D. B., Korylchuk, S. T. Problems of Implementing the Principle of the Rule of Law during Investigative (Search) and Covert Investigative (Search) Actions. Bulletin of Criminal Proceedings. 2025. No. 3–4. Pp. 148–167.