1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Review of court decisions based on exceptional circumstances in connection with the finding by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of a violation by Ukraine of the right to a fair trial due to non-compliance with the principle of legal certainty when resolving the issue of the statute of limitations.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Court proceeded from the fact that the ECHR in the case of “Guminskiy v. Ukraine” established a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, as national courts groundlessly applied prejudice to the issue of the statute of limitations.
* The appellate court erroneously recognized the circumstances established in another case (to which the applicant was not a party) as binding for the resolution of the dispute regarding the statute of limitations in this case.
* The Grand Chamber emphasized that only factual circumstances (actions, events) have prejudicial significance, not the legal assessment provided by a court in another proceeding.
* Since the appellate court did not independently examine the moment the statute of limitations began to run, but merely referred to another decision, it failed to fulfill its duty as a “court established by law.”
* The Grand Chamber emphasized that it, as a cassation instance, does not have the authority to independently establish factual circumstances (in particular, the date when the prosecutor learned of the violation), and therefore cannot make a decision on the merits.
* The only effective way to restore the applicant’s rights (*restitutio in integrum*) is to cancel the decisions and send the case for a new trial for the proper examination of evidence.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the application, cancelled the decisions of the appellate and cassation courts, and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
***
**Important note:** In this decision, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court does not depart from its previous legal positions, but on the contrary, consistently applies established practice regarding the limits of reviewing cases based on exceptional circumstances and the distinction between prejudicial facts and legal assessment. Therefore, the word “” is not added in this case.
