Review

The article is dedicated to a comprehensive study of the typology of prioritization in criminal proceedings (PCP), which is of particular relevance in the context of full-scale aggression and the immense burden on the criminal justice system. The purpose of the article is to develop the the-oretical foundations for the typology of PCP, to identify its key types and their detailed character-istics. Applying a combination of general scientific and special legal methods, including systemic, comparative legal, and formal-logical, the author substantiates the need to distinguish between two main types of prioritization: material and procedural. Material PCP is considered as the ranking of fundamental or statutory elements of the criminal procedure, while procedural PCP is focused on optimizing the algorithmization of the sequence of certain procedural actions and the adoption of procedural decisions. In the context of the typology of PCP by subject, the author emphasizes the need, along with the traditional legislative and law enforcement levels, to distinguish a judicial level of PCP, taking into account the role that the Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body, plays in the overall mechanism of forming priorities in criminal proceedings. The author examines problematic issues in the field of ensuring the unity of judicial practice. The predominantly implicit nature of the normative establishment of priorities in criminal proceedings is proven. The multifaceted nature of the normative means of ranking the elements of the criminal procedure is illustrated, and a number of rules for such ranking are identified. The latter, in particular, include: the establishment of a hierarchy of certain elements of criminal procedural activity (hierarchy: legally protected values of sources of criminal procedural legislation, preventive measures; jurisdictional hierarchy; rules of recusal, which resolve the competition of roles that participants can perform within a single proceeding); the priority (formal and informal) of performing or choosing, taking into account the principle of proportionality, the least intrusive procedural action or measure of procedural coercion in order to solve the tasks of criminal proceedings; the priority of a special norm over a general one, one of the varieties of which is the priority of a special procedure over a general one; the identification of elements of the procedural form that can be «sacrificed» in extreme conditions, etc. It is emphasized that, according to the nature of the criteria, PCP can be formal and informal. In conclusion, for the typology of PCP depending on its levels, the author distinguishes 2 dimensions: vertical (prioritization in one criminal proceeding) and horizontal (ranking of the proceedings themselves in terms of their priority, primacy). It is proven that a scientifically grounded typology of PCP has important theoretical and practical significance for improving the efficiency of criminal proceedings, ensuring a balance between public and private interests, the effective allocation of resources of criminal justice bodies, and for adapting national legislation to European standards. At the same time, further in-depth research into the phenomenon of PCP is needed.