The paper is dedicated to the analysis of the problem of court refusal in the application of an authorized body on probation issues regarding person’s release from serving a sentence in case of committing a new crime during probationary period. Criminal, criminal and executive and also criminal and procedural legislation of Ukraine, judicial practice were analyzed.It was determined that it was necessary to resolve the issue of determining the actions of the personnel of a probation body in case if at the moment of the expiry of the probationary period of the persons released from trial there was some information on entering into the Uniform Register of pre-trial investigations of the criminal offense committed during probationary period, since in recent years, the number of courts refusals has increased in satisfaction of such petitions of probation bodies. Therefore, over the trial period determined by the court during the release of a person with a trial, that is, after the expiration of such a term, about 3% of convicts continue to be registered with probation bodies.It was proved that the principles of Articles 75, 78 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, Article 165 of the Criminal and Executive Code of Ukraine have obligatory character, and a representative of a probation body after the end of probationary period should apply for exemption from serving a sentence, and the court, accordingly, should take a decision about such dismissal, if during this term he fulfilled his duties and did not commit a new crime.The fact of committing a new crime and a convict’s guilt must be established by a court conviction in accordance with the principles of Article 369 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine and belongs only to court jurisdiction and takes place at the final stage of judicial proceedings in the form of a court decision that is a sentence or a decree.It was concluded that the authorized probation bodies had to adhere to the principles of the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the right to a presumption of innocence, and therefore the delay by a representative of an authorized body on probation issues with the application to court after the expiry of probationary period may be interpreted as a premature statement by an official person of convict’s accusation in committing a new crime, and therefore, as a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence against him.Normative resolving of the issue of staying under the supervision and account of convicts who committed a new crime during probationary period was proposed by supplementing part 3 of Article 165 of the Criminal and Executive Code of Ukraine.

Key words: an authorized body on probation issues, supervisory probation, release from serving a sentence with a trial, a crime committed during probationary period, a presumption of innocence, a judicial decision.

REFERENCES

1. Knyzhenko, O. O. (2003), Exemption from serving a sentence with a trial under the criminal law of Ukraine, Kharkiv.
2. Ukraine (2015), On probation: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
3. Ukraine (2003), Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine: Lfw of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
4. Ukraine (2018), “Certificate of the number of persons who are registered with the authorized probation bodies”, Probation of Ukrainy website, available at: http://www.probation.gov.ua/?page_id=197 (accessed 16 January 2019).
5. Svirets, V. V. (2018), “Problematic issues in the activity of probation bodies, Theoretical and practical aspects of the institute of probation in Ukraine, International Conference”, National Academy of Public Prosecutor of Ukraine, Kyiv, June 22, 2018, Р. 108.
6. Slutska, T. I. (2018), “Presumption of innocence in action? Practical implementation of this principle with regard to persons exempted from serving a sentence with a trial”, Protokol: juridical website, available at: https://protocol.ua/ru/prezumptsiya_nevinuvatosti_v_dii_praktichna_realizatsiya_tsogo_printsipu_shchodo_osib_zvilnenih_vid_vidbuvannya_pokarannya_z_viprobuvannyam (accessed 16 January 2019).
7. Fidria, Yu. (2014), “Current status and prospects for improving the institute for exemption from serving a sentence with a trial”, Historical and legal journal, No 2, pp. 106–111.
8. Samofalov, O. L. (2016), “Some features of exemption from trial and their disadvantages”, Journal of Eastern European Law, No 34, PP. 37–42.
9. Oliinyk, O. I. (2018), “Regarding some problems, release from serving a sentence with a trial in case of committing an offense during the probationary period”, Journal of Eastern European Law, No 52, PP. 65–71.
10. “The decision of the panel of judges of the court chamber in criminal cases of the Court of Appeal of Chernihiv region” (2018), Case No 751/673/18, 17 July 2018, The only state register of court decisions website, available at: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/75395051 (accessed 16 January 2019).
11. Ukraine (2001), Criminal Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
12. Ukraine (2012), Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.
13. Ukraine (2003), Instruction on the procedure for the execution of sentences not related to imprisonment and control of persons convicted of such sentences, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine website, available at: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0016-04 (accessed 16 January 2019).
14. Constitution of Ukraine (1996), Law of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv.