Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Oxford 2026: Science and Education Today‖ (July 17-19, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. - Oxford, United Kingdom, 2026. - 160 p.

30 LAWAND INTERNATIONAL LAW DOI: https://doi.org/10.64828/conf-140-2026-5 UDC 343.13:341.645 Anton Babynets postgraduate student at the Department of Criminal Procedure National Academy of Internal Affairs Kyiv, Ukraine ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7454-0743 CONFIRMED SERVICE OF A SUMMONS AS A PREREQUISITE FOR IMPOSING AMONETARY PENALTY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF UKRAINE Abstract. The theses characterise the monetary penalty under Chapter 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine as a form of criminal procedural liability, systematise the principal statutory grounds for its imposition, and examine confirmed service of a summons as an evidentiary prerequisite. The analysis distinguishes postal service, ordinary e-mail, service through the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System and statutory deemed-notification rules, and formulates a consecutive judicial test based on national legislation and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Keywords: monetary penalty, criminal procedural liability, summons, confirmation of service, electronic service, deemed notification, measures to ensure criminal proceedings, investigating judge. Since the adoption of the CPC of Ukraine in 2012, the monetary penalty stipulated in Chapter 12 (Articles 144-147) has become a distinctive phenomenon amongst the securing measures ensuring the efficiency of criminal proceedings. According to Part 1 of Article 144 of the CPC, the monetary penalty can be imposed on the participants of criminal proceedings, in the circumstances and amounts specified in the Code, for the violation of the procedural duties. The legal construction of the measure incorporates certain elements reproducing the typical features of liability: the compulsory power exercised irrespective of the will of the person concerned; the property deprivation represented by the payment of the sum determined by the judicial decision; the judicial form of application effected through the decision; the retrospective basis in the shape of the criminal procedural offence, i.e. the guilt in the non-performance of the procedural duty without any legitimate reasons; the purpose of securing rather than punishing; and the relative definiteness of the measure leaving the amount at judicial discretion. For this reason, the measure is appropriately qualified in the doctrine as the form of criminal procedural liability and not just as the securing measure. However, the scope of the institution is not limited to the parties of criminal proceedings. According to the Paragraph 25 of Part 1 of Article 3 of the CPC, the victim and representatives, civil party, the representative of a legal entity in relation to which the proceedings are instituted, third parties having their property or rights violated, the person concerned by the extradition, the applicant (including the whistle- blower), the witness and defence counsel, the attesting witness, the bailor, the interpreter, the expert, the specialist, the personnel of probation, the court clerk and the usher come within the scope of the procedural category. However, the mere belonging to the category is not sufficient to impose liability. The monetary penalty can be imposed only where the Code or the ruling of an investigating judge or court assigns certain duty to the person concerned and sanctions his/her violation with the stated measure. Failure to appear at the request falls within such duties and prevails in practice. A systematic organization of the special norms shows the typical situations where the measure can be imposed: the failure of the suspect, accused, witness, victim, civil defendant or the representative of a legal entity to appear upon a summons without a valid reason or failing to notify the authority about the reason of absence (Part 1 of Article 139; Articles 323, 325 and 326 of the CPC); the failure of the witness, specialist, interpreter or expert to appear in the court according to Article 327; the violation by the suspect or accused of his/her obligations resulting from the ruling imposing a personal guarantee (Part 2 of Article 179); the failure of the guarantor to perform his/her guarantees (Part 5 of Article 180); the repeated violation, despite the warning, of the procedure of the hearing held via video-conferencing outside the court room by the means of the participant (Part 5 of Article 330); and the violation of the obligation of parents, guardian or custodian to