Evolution of the Criminal Procedural Status of the Security Service of Ukraine: Legislation and Judicial Practice

Abstract

The relevance of the study is driven by the transformation of the role of the Security Service of Ukraine in criminal justice under martial law and escalating threats to national security, which necessitates a clear normative definition of its procedural powers, the procedure for utilizing counterintelligence materials, and the alignment of judicial practice regarding the admissibility of evidence. The aim of the study is to examine changes in the legislative regulation of the powers of the Security Service of Ukraine in criminal proceedings and to synthesize key trends in judicial practice regarding the determination of investigative jurisdiction of security agencies, the admissibility of evidence, and the use of counterintelligence materials. The paper employs the formal-legal method, comparative-legal analysis, systemic synthesis, content analysis of judicial decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Anti-Corruption Court, as well as elements of the historical-legal method to assess the evolution of normative regulation. The research identifies the main stages in the transformation of the criminal procedural status of the Security Service of Ukraine, specifies the execution of its special powers in accordance with criminal procedural legislation, and synthesizes judicial approaches to determining investigative jurisdiction and criteria for the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings involving counterintelligence materials. The analysis of case law reveals increased judicial scrutiny over procedural guarantees during evidence evaluation in proceedings involving the Security Service of Ukraine, which is reflected in instances where evidence was ruled inadmissible due to material procedural violations or the presence of elements of entrapment. The study concludes that judicial practice significantly specifies the scope of procedural powers of the Security Service of Ukraine, ensuring a balance between state security interests and criminal justice standards. The identified legislative gaps highlight the necessity of further refining the legal framework governing the Security Service of Ukraine in criminal justice by establishing a clear distinction between special and procedural powers and defining evidence admissibility criteria.