Legal certainty and inadmissibility of double jeopardy: issues of theory and practice

The paper considers the inadmissibility of repeated prosecution for the same offence. It has been determined that this principle has traditionally been explored as a principle of criminal and criminal procedural law, which agree on the necessity to comply with it. The article argues that the inadmissibility of double jeopardy is connected to other theoretical provisions. Failure to do so leads to the extension of discretionary powers of public authorities. Double jeopardy creates uncertainty for participants in legal relationships, creates the threat of unequal application of legislation in similar and like legal relationships, which negatively affects the level of law and order. The following methods were used in the work: systematic and structural, method of analysis and synthesis, in combination with axiological and anthropocentric approaches. The necessity of applying this principle in the organic relation to the principle of legality, the finality of the judgment and the obligation to comply with it has been shown. It has been argued that the inadmissibility of double jeopardy is not only a constitutional provision, but also a principle of legal liability. Currently, there is reason to speak of the possibility of applying it to all types of legal liability, regardless of branch. In addition, the theoretical concept of legal certainty includes this principle as a component, which is organically related to its other components. The practical significance of applying this principle is to differentiate liability for several offenses whose composition is present in the actions of a person from repeated prosecution for one offense. This is achieved by including the principle of double jeopardy as a structural element in legal certainty. It is thus possible to trace its relationship to the other components of this principle and to claim that inadmissibility of double jeopardy is a rule that extends to all, without exception, legal liabilities, not only criminal. The theoretical substantiation of this approach is suggested by the author, and practical advantages are demonstrated by specific examples