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

  • Yevhenii KOMPANETS Scientific Research Institute of Intellectual Property of National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8162-1965
Keywords: criminal proceedings, proof, standard of proof, infringement of intellectual property rights

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.

References

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.

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

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

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

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.

Rishennia Yevropeiskoho Sudu z prav liudyny vid 15.11.2007 r. u spravi Benderskyi proty Ukrainy (zaiava № 22750/02). (N.d.) Retrieved from Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. Zakonodavstvo Ukrainy: https://bit.ly/3rx7rkB.

Rukovodstvo po state 6 Konvencii. Pravo na spravedlivoe sudebnoe razbiratelstvo (ugolovno-pravovoj aspekt). Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2014. (N.d.) Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3Bw1aKN.

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 14.06.2017 r. u spravi № 923/2075/15. (N.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen: https://bit.ly/3i0uykn.

Tomarov, I. (27.10.2020) Dokhid porushnyka yak minimalna upushchena vyhoda pravovlasnyka. Yurydychna hazeta.

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 30.07.2019 r. u spravi № 718/956/17. (N.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen: https://bit.ly/3y1iHs5.

Mulrine, T. V. (1997) Reasonable Doubt: How in the World Is It Defined? American University International Law Review, 12 (1), 195–225.

Beznosiuk, A. M. (2014) Dovedenist poza rozumnym sumnivom ta dostovirnist yak standarty dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy. Sudova apeliatsiia, 3 (36), 23–28.

Vecchi, D. (2020) Laudans error: Reasonable doubt and acquittals of guilty people. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 24 (3), 211–232. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/36XAfJO; https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712720914649.

Case of Tanli v. Turkey (Application no. 26129/95). Judgment, 10 April 2001. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/2TvPne6.

Kret, H. R. (2019) Standart dokazuvannia «poza rozumnym sumnivom» u praktytsi Verkhovnoho Sudu. Pravo i suspilstvo, 3, 212–217.

Postanova kolehii suddiv Pershoi sudovoi palaty Kasatsiinoho kryminalnoho sudu Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 04.07.2018 r. u spravi № 688/788/15-k. (N.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen: https://bit.ly/3BzvcNB.

Case of Ringvold v. Norway (Application no. 34964/97). Judgment, 11 February 2003. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/36Wq0VZ.

Case of Khamidov v. Russia (Application no. 72118/01). Judgment, 15 November 2007. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3y2PU6o.

Case of Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia (Application no. 25968/02). Judgment, 31 July 2007. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/2TuR1wu.

Case of Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (Application no. 46454/11). Judgment, 31 May 2018. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3BDp32P.

Case of Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2) (Application no. 14248/05). Judgment, 16 December 2010. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3i0uQaX.

Case of Vinks and Ribicka v. Latvia (Application no. 28926/10). Judgment, 30 January 2020. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3kKW9rI.

Postanova Verkhovnoho sudu vid 03.07.2019 r. u spravi № 288/1158/16-k. (N.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3i0NT4V.

Kytai — Reziume — № v «WIPO Lex» CN042-j. The public prosecutor V. Guo Mingsheng, Guo Mingfeng and Sun Shubiao (2015) SZZXCZ No. 0004, Suqian Intermediate Peoples Court of Jiangsu. (N.d.) Retrieved from WIPO Lex Database: https://bit.ly/3y5TnRM.

Vyrok Hlybotskoho raionnoho sudu Chernivetskoi oblasti vid 21.06.2019 r. u spravi № 715/2391/17. (N.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen: https://bit.ly/3x5T8EF.

Vyrok Mykolaivskoho raionnoho sudu Lvivskoi oblasti vid 10.01.2019 r. u spravi № 447/2431/15-k. (N.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen: https://bit.ly/3rudYg5.

Golovko, L. V., Gucenko, K. F., Filimonov, B. A. (2001) Ugolovnyj process zapadnyh gosudarstv (K. F. Gucenko, ed.). Moskva : Zercalo-M.

Postanova Apeliatsiinoho sudu m. Kyieva vid 01.03.2010 r. u spravi № 33-421. (N.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen: https://bit.ly/2UGyU7v.

Vitruk, O. V. Hadion, N. M. Hladun, O. Z. et al (2014) Metodychni rekomendatsii Heneralnoi prokuratury Ukrainy z pytan protydii nezakonnomu vykorystanniu znaka dlia tovariv i posluh, firmovoho naimenuvannia, kvalifikovanoho zaznachennia pokhodzhennia tovaru (st. 229 KK Ukrainy). Kyiv.

Published
2021-04-02
Section
Law