Review

The purpose of the study is to study the features of authorizing and conducting a search at the request of the defense in the event of non-execution of the ruling on temporary access to things and documents. To achieve the set goal, the author applied general scientific and special research methods, namely dialectical, formal-legal and logical-normative methods. It was established that a search conduct-ed in accordance with Article 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine cannot be considered as an autonomous investigative (search) action, since it is conducted as a sanction for non-execution of the ruling of the investigating judge on temporary access to things and documents. This legal nature of this search should also impose certain restrictions on its conduct. It is advisable to apply in practice an ap-proach according to which during a search conducted in accordance with Article 166 of the Code of Crim-inal Procedure of Ukraine, the seizure of things and documents that are not provided for in the ruling of the investigating judge is not allowed. It is in this context that representatives of law enforcement agencies who will subsequently execute the relevant decision should consider this action. First of all, this should concern the possibility of seizing things and documents that are relevant to the criminal proceedings, but are not provided for in the decision of the investigating judge. If we consider this search not as an autono-mous investigative (search) action, but as a sanction for failure to execute the decision, we can conclude that during such a search, it is allowed to find and seize only those things and documents that are clearly specified in the decision. Seizure of other things and documents will indicate that what is happening is not a guarantee of temporary access to things and documents (for which, in fact, the search is conducted), but a separate investigative (search) action. The only exceptions will be things that are seized from civil circulation, because in this case it will not be so much about collecting evidence, but about ensuring the safety of the participants in the relevant procedural action and the population as a whole. Despite the fact that this search is used as a sanction, in the process of considering the relevant petition before the investigating judge, the party that filed such a petition must prove the presence of all circumstances that constitute a local subject of evidence and are provided for in Article 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. In addition, given the specific nature of the search in accor-dance with Article 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, it must also be proven: 1) the presence of a ruling of the investigating judge on temporary access to specific items and documents; 2) the fact that the owner or possessor of the relevant items and documents has not complied with the ruling of the investigating judge on temporary access.