1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Cassation appeal against the appellate court ruling, by which criminal proceedings against a person were closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, due to the defense counsel’s disagreement with the court’s finding regarding the commission of crimes by the person without conducting a full judicial review.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court confirmed that when closing proceedings on non-rehabilitating grounds (statute of limitations), the court has no right to state the guilt of a person in committing a crime, as this violates the presumption of innocence.
– The panel of judges noted that exemption from liability under Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is not an admission of guilt, but rather the State’s waiver of criminal prosecution due to the lapse of time.
– The Court emphasized that the appellate instance committed an error when, while overturning the verdict, it simultaneously asserted in the reasoning part of the ruling that the accused had committed specific criminal offenses.
– The Supreme Court pointed out that such conclusions of the appellate court were made without reviewing the case on its merits and without evaluating evidence, which contradicts the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
– It is important that the Court emphasized the impossibility of establishing the fact of committing an act if the court of first instance’s verdict has been overturned and a new trial on the merits has not been conducted.
– Thus, the Supreme Court recognized that references to a person’s guilt in a ruling on the closure of proceedings constitute a procedural violation, which is subject to correction by excluding these wordings from the text of the decision.
– The Court reaffirmed its position (in particular, referring to the practice of February 18, 2025) that when closing a case due to the statute of limitations, the court cannot state the fact that a person committed a criminally punishable act, departing from any contrary approaches that may have been allowed previously.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, amending the appellate court ruling by excluding from its reasoning part the assertions that the person had committed the criminal offenses incriminated to them.
