Subject of complaint: Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Prosecutor’s Office (Prosecutor’s Office)
Complaint in brief: On July 23, 2018 a manufacturer of dairy products from Kryvyi Rih applied to the Council. The enterprise could not return servers, keys and documents seized during the search as a result of the Prosecutor’s Office inactivity. According to the Complaint, the Prosecutor delayed with implementation of the court ruling, according to which the property had to be returned to the Complainant. Moreover, the property had also been seized with violations. Law enforcers had no grounds for confiscating servers and keys at all and they had to return the documents immediately after studying them, since they had not been arrested. However, according to the Prosecutor, he kept the documents for “arranging and systematization.”
Disagreeing with the Prosecutor’s actions, the company filed a complaint to a Qualifications and Disciplinary Commission of Public Prosecutors of Ukraine and turned to the Council for assistance.
Actions taken: The Council appealed to the Commission and upheld the Complainant’s position. The Council’s representatives participated in the meeting of the Commission and stressed the delay in complying with the court order and possible Prosecutor’s unfair behaviour.
During the meeting the Commission of Public Prosecutors found the said Prosecutor seized DVR servers and a computer without the court order. The order only concerned documents. The Prosecutor also groundlessly sealed a part of the plant’s warehouse and took the keys to it. Thus, the Prosecutor violated the requirements of Art. 171 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. He neither applied to the investigating judge with a request for the arrest of temporarily seized property, nor duly complied with the decision on return of property. Such actions are treated as a disciplinary offense,
Result achieved: After examining the case file and hearing the positions of all parties to the case, members of the Commission of Prosecutors made a decision. They brought the Prosecutor to justice and took a disciplinary action against him. The Prosecutor, who delayed returning of property, got reprimanded. The full version of the decision can be found here.