Procedural time limits as a tool for implementing the principle of legal certainty in criminal proceedings

The article provides a formal legal analysis of procedural deadlines in criminal proceedings through the prism of the principle of legal certainty as a component of the rule of law. It is argued that temporal regulation of criminal proceedings is not only of organizational importance but also serves as a procedural guarantee of rights and freedoms, as it determines the permissible duration of state interference in such rights and freedoms of individuals, prevents indefinite detention of individuals in the relevant procedural status, and ensures the predictability of legal consequences. It is shown that the quality of the formulation of a procedural time limit is determined not only by the numerical measurement of its duration, but also by the clarity of the definition of the beginning and end of its duration, the unambiguity of the procedures for its extension or renewal, and the predictability of the consequences of its violation. An approach to assessing time limits as a mechanism for minimizing subjectivity and possible abuse in resolving issues related to interference with the rights and freedoms of individuals is proposed, since the less defined the time categories are, the more procedural specificity is required for the criteria for their application and means of control. Based on an analysis of Articles 28, 113–117, 219, 314, and 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a distinction is made between formally defined, relatively defined, evaluative, and time limits established by law enforcement agencies, and it is argued that the coexistence of these constructs without internal consistency may lead to uneven levels of legal certainty at different stages of proceedings. It is emphasized that evaluative categories for determining time limits (in particular, reasonable time, immediately, without delay) are necessary to consider the diversity of factual situations but create risks of unpredictability and inconsistency in practice if not ensured by standards of reasoning and procedural control. To clarify the content of the state’s obligations around managing the duration of proceedings, the ECHR standards regarding the requirement of a reasonable time and effective remedies were analyzed. Proposals have been formulated to improve the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, aimed at increasing the predictability and controllability of time limits without establishing a formally defined limit for court proceedings. In particular, the need for regulatory strengthening of standards for managing the duration of proceedings, clarification of procedural guarantees of access to the reasoning part of a court decision, and unification of approaches to renewing time limits has been substantiated. It has been proven that procedural time limits should be considered as an element of temporal guarantees of the rule of law, and their harmonization as a condition for improving the quality of criminal procedural regulation.