International Standards of Proof at the Stage of Court Consideration of Criminal Proceedings for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

Author:

KOMPANETS Yevhenii1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Scientific Research Institute of Intellectual Property of National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

Abstract

Based on the analysis of scientific works, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, foreign and national law enforcement practice, the theoretical aspects and the practice of use of standards of proof «weighty conviction», «beyond reasonable doubt» in criminal proceedings for infringement of intellectual property rights have been studied. Based on the opinions of scholars and the positions of the courts, the problematic issues, in particular, the place of the balance of probabilities in the judicial standards of proof and criminal proceedings have been identified. Critical remarks on the existing approaches have been made and the consequences of the lack of unity of the approach to implementation of standards of proof in Ukraine have been outlined. Recognition by the Supreme Court of the permanent criteria of the standard «beyond reasonable doubt» does not secure against contradictory judgements/decisions in similar cases. Such decisions do not contribute to the principles of legal certainty and fairness; they lead to avoiding of liability by infringers, repeated infringement of intellectual property rights and introduction of counterfeit products/counterfeit content into turnover. For discussion in the scientific community and for taking into consideration by the practical workers, a number of the decisions of the Supreme Court, which could guide further implementation of judicial standards of proof on the basis of the established criteria, inner conviction and «common sense», has been proposed.

Publisher

Leonid Yuzkov Khmelnytskyi University of Management and Law

Reference29 articles.

1. R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233). Published on Oct 2, 1970. (N.d.) Retrieved from Issuu: https://bit.ly/3kP65jT.

2. Babichev N. T., Borovskij Ya. M. Latinsko-russkij i russko-latinskij slovar krylatyh slov i vyrazhenij. Moskva : Russkij yazyk, 1982. 960 s.

3. Sliusarchuk Kh. R. Standarty dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu provadzhenni. Avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk : 12.00.09. Lviv, 2017. 24 s.

4. Kret, H. R. (2020) Mizhnarodni standarty dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy: teoretyko-pravovi ta praktychni osnovy. Odesa.

5. Case of J.K. and others v. Sweden (Application no. 59166/12). Judgment, 23 August 2016. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3eRRwYZ.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3