Case No. 947/10715/23 dated 04/11/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that there are several mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance and active assistance in solving the crime), which significantly reduce the degree of severity of the committed offense. The court also took into account data about the defendant’s personality – young age, absence of previous convictions, positive characteristics, health condition, and family circumstances. The court emphasized that the punitive function of punishment is not dominant but should contribute to achieving a fair balance between individual rights and the protection of society’s interests.
Case No. 688/4706/23 dated 05/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s verdict regarding imposing actual imprisonment on a person who was driving a vehicle while intoxicated and caused a traffic accident. The court was guided by the fact that the law directly prohibits applying conditional release in cases of traffic safety violations by persons in an alcoholic state. The court also took into account that the defendant had previously been held responsible for driving a vehicle while intoxicated but continued to violate the law. At the same time, the court considered mitigating circumstances – sincere repentance, the status of a combat veteran, and the victim’s position. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict, which imposed a punishment of 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 3 years.
Case No. 462/410/22 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff PERSON_1 died on June 29, 2019, that is, before filing the lawsuit and opening the proceedings (January-March 2022), which is confirmed by the death certificate. Procedural succession is possible only if the person’s death occurred after the opening of the case proceedings, since only then does the person acquire the status of a party to the case. The court also took into account that the death certificate is an indisputable proof of the fact of death until disproved in court.
Case No. 824/111/22 dated 07/11/2024
The court refused to satisfy the application for deferment for two main reasons. First, the applicant missed the one-year period for filing such an application, as they approached the court more than a year after the decision was made. Second, the court does not have the authority to defer the execution of international commercial arbitration decisions, as this is not provided for by special legislation.
Case No. 523/16351/22 dated 07/11/2024
The Supreme Court established that the appellate court violated the principle of direct examination of evidence, as it did not directly examine the evidence in the court session on the basis of which it decided to cancel the verdict. This is especially important given that in the first instance court, the defendant fully admitted his guilt. The court emphasized that non-compliance with the principle of directness leads to a violation of other basic principles of criminal proceedings.
Case No. 757/30926/21-ц dated 06/11/2024
When rendering its decision, the court was guided by the fact that the unlawfulness of the Ministry of Justice’s order to cancel the certificate was established by a previous court decision. The court took into account that the plaintiff had been deprived of the opportunity to carry out activities for a long time.Case No. 824/19/24 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – recognition and granting permission to enforce the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on collecting debt from LLC “Naftogazmontazh” in favor of “TOTALGAZ INDUSTRIE srl” company. Since the available part of the decision lacks a substantive part, it is impossible to determine the main arguments of the court. However, considering that the court left unchanged the ruling of the appellate court, which allowed the enforcement of the ICAC decision, it can be assumed that the court did not find grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award as provided by law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of LLC “Naftogazmontazh” and left unchanged the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court on recognition and granting permission to enforce the ICAC decision.
Case No. 442/4335/22 dated 07/11/2024
The court rejected the defense arguments about the absence of intent to murder, as the method of committing the crime (intentional arson with gasoline), preventing assistance to the victim, and the nature of the injuries caused (40% body burns) indicate intent to deprive life. The court also noted that the duration of time between causing injuries and death does not affect qualification if intent to murder is proven. Evidence in the case (witness testimonies, video recordings, expert conclusions) confirms the convict’s guilt.
Case No. 947/27382/21 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Appealing the verdict against a person convicted of stealing communication cables and damaging telecommunication networks. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) According to the new Law No. 3886-IX dated 18.07.2024, theft of property worth less than 2,270 UAH is decriminalized and considered an administrative offense; 2) Since the value of stolen property in each episode was less than this amount, conviction under articles on theft (Art. 185 of the Criminal Code) is subject to cancellation; 3) However, punishment for damaging telecommunication networks (Art. 360 of the Criminal Code) remains in force, as these actions continue to be criminally punishable. Court decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal – cancel conviction for theft, but maintain the punishment of 3 years of imprisonment for damaging telecommunication networks.
Case No. 272/639/19 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional serious bodily harm and hooliganism. Since the document contains only the introductory and operative parts of the Supreme Court’s resolution, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments used by the court. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the Supreme Court did not find grounds for canceling or modifying the challenged court decisions. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of the defense.
Case No. 824/113/23 dated 07/11/2024
The court refused to satisfy the application because the claims under the ICAC decisions at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have different legal statuses – one decision has undergone recognition procedure and received permission for enforcement in Ukraine, while the other has not. Therefore, such claims cannot be considered homogeneous for the purposes of offset. Moreover, the claimant catego…Here is the translation of the provided legal texts:
The debtor explicitly denied the offset of counterclaims, and the debtor did not provide evidence of the erroneous issuance of the writ of execution or the absence of an obligation to the creditor.
[Case No. 344/18991/23 dated 12/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that at the time of filing the lawsuit, the children were already outside Ukraine, and the criminal proceedings regarding their disappearance were closed due to the absence of a crime. Moreover, during martial law, special rules apply that allow children under 16 to travel abroad accompanied by one parent without the consent of the other parent. A travel ban in this case would not restore the plaintiff’s rights, which he considers violated.
[Case No. 171/111/20 dated 07/11/2024]
The cassation instance court established that the courts of first and appellate instances did not provide a proper assessment of evidence regarding the actual construction of the water tower and its existence, did not substantiate conclusions about the non-performance of work in the specified volume, and did not motivate the decision to recover damages from the defendant in the presence of the tower itself. The courts did not take into account witness testimonies and documents confirming the tower’s construction, albeit with certain deficiencies.
[Case No. 554/7288/22 dated 24/10/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that on August 9, 2024, a new law No. 3886-IX came into effect, which changed the limits of criminal liability for theft. Under the new law, criminal liability occurs only if the stolen amount exceeds 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens (which was 2,481 UAH in 2022 and 2,684 UAH in 2023). Since the stolen amounts were significantly lower, and the law has retroactive effect if it mitigates liability, the court concluded that it was necessary to close the criminal proceedings.
[Case No. 521/10907/22 dated 07/11/2024]
Subject of dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding a driver who violated traffic rules and caused a traffic accident with moderate bodily injuries. The court was guided by the following: 1) the defendant admitted guilt and agreed to an abbreviated trial procedure; 2) there were no significant procedural violations in the first and appellate instances; 3) the defense’s requests to consider the expert opinion about the guilt of both drivers were rejected, as these pieces of evidence were not examined in the court of first instance with the parties’ consent. The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions, which sentenced the defendant to a fine of 51,000 UAH with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 2 years and recovery of compensation in favor of the victim.
[Case No. 757/24480/21-ц dated 06/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide original loan agreements and could not prove the fact of transferring funds to the defendant. According to the principle of adversarial proceedings, the plaintiff is obliged to prove the validity of their claims. Since the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence to support their claims, and the provided copies of agreements cannot be considered sufficient evidence, the court found the claim unjustified.
[Case No. 713/2351/22 dated 11/11/2024]
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).In the decision to cancel previous court rulings and close the criminal proceedings, as the law establishing criminal liability for the committed act had lost its validity at the time of case consideration. The court also excluded references to sentencing under the cumulative sentences from previous rulings. The Supreme Court cancelled the verdict and ruling of lower courts and closed the criminal proceedings against the accused.
Case No. 766/23615/21 dated 22/10/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the court verdict regarding a person who attempted to steal a whiskey bottle worth 413.18 UAH from a gas station. Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that by the time of appellate court consideration, the convicted person had already served the initial sentence (1 year probation period), which ended on December 2, 2022. Therefore, the appellate court’s decision to impose a new punishment of 100 hours of community service violated the principle of prohibition of double punishment for the same offense. The court also rejected the prosecutor’s request to close the case due to decriminalization of the act, since after full execution of the court decision, closing criminal proceedings without additional grounds is not provided by law. Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the initial local court verdict of corrective labor for 1 year with suspension of sentence.
Case No. 621/424/18 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding conviction for theft and illegal drug trafficking. As this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the Supreme Court found significant violations in the appellate court’s decision requiring retrial. The court considered it necessary to keep the accused in custody during the new appellate review.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, cancelled the appellate court’s decision, and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 2030/977/12 dated 24/10/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s refusal to restore the time limit for cassation appeal of the verdict and court ruling. The court did not provide arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. However, from the decision, it is clear that the court agreed with the appellate court’s position regarding the absence of grounds for restoring the missed cassation appeal time limit.
The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged and rejected the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 753/3943/17 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of consideration – appointment of criminal case for cassation review based on the convicted PERSON_2’s cassation appeal. The court established that the criminal case was requested for verification in cassation order, and there are no obstacles to its appointment for review. The decision was made based on Article 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 and relevant transitional provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in the 2017 edition.
The court ruled to schedule the case for cassation review on March 13, 2025, at 11:30.
Case No. 761/18386/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court decisionCourt left unchanged the verdict against a person convicted of cooperation with occupation authorities in Kherson. The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor in the appellate complaint requested the same punishment that had already been assigned by the court of first instance (3 years of imprisonment with a probation period). At the same time, the prosecutor did not provide proper arguments regarding the incorrectness of releasing the accused from serving the sentence with probation. The appellate court could not go beyond the requirements of the appellate complaint to worsen the accused’s situation.
The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 759/7741/20 dated 07/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) imposing a fine instead of imprisonment is not worsening the accused’s situation; 2) when sentencing, all circumstances of the case were taken into account, including the convicted person’s health condition and property status; 3) a formal violation regarding issuing a verdict instead of a ruling is not significant, as it did not worsen the convicted person’s situation.
Case No. 204/1887/22 dated 31/10/2024
The court rejected the defense’s arguments about necessary defense because: 1) witnesses characterized the victim as a non-aggressive person and confirmed that he did not commit violence against the accused; 2) the nature of the injury (a knife strike to the heart area) and the subsequent behavior of the accused (failure to provide assistance) indicate intent to kill; 3) the victim was in a state of severe alcohol intoxication, which casts doubt on his ability to commit active aggressive actions.
Case No. 161/5630/21 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the court verdict regarding conviction for a robbery with home invasion. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) the convicted person’s guilt is confirmed by the victim’s testimony, who recognized the attacker by voice and described attack details; 2) witness testimonies and video recordings from surveillance cameras confirmed that after the attack, the convicted person exchanged euros at a currency exchange point; 3) during detention, the convicted person had the crime instrument (a knife) and part of the stolen funds seized.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance and appellate courts, which sentenced the person to 8 years of imprisonment with property confiscation for committing a robbery.
Case No. 592/18374/18 dated 06/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the participation of a defender is mandatory in cases of applying compulsory medical measures. The appellate court violated the person’s right to defense by considering the case without a defender’s participation. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that the right to effective defense is a fundamental feature of a fair trial and does not cease after the case is considered in the first instance court.
Case No. 205/6026/22 dated 04/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court considered the case without properly notifying the accused about the time and place of the court session. The case materials lack evidence of the accused receiving a summons or any other notification about the appellate review. Sending a notification to the place of detention without confirming its receipt by the accused cannot be considered proper notification.Case No. 521/16346/21 dated 06/11/2024
The court noted that a violation of the procedure for evicting a person from a residential premises (failure to provide alternative housing) does not grant them the right to reside in it. The plaintiffs did not prove the existence of property rights to reside in the disputed apartment, which does not belong to them. Article 109 of the Housing Code of Ukraine establishes only the procedure for eviction and does not provide grounds for acquiring property rights.
Case No. 636/3265/20 dated 06/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that after the plaintiff fully repaid the debt under the court decision from 2011 in 2016, the bank lost the right to charge additional penalty sanctions and penalties under the credit agreement. After collecting the full amount of debt under the court decision, the bank was only entitled to receive guarantees of proper performance of the obligation in accordance with Art. 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (3% per annum and inflation losses), but not to charge additional fines and penalties. Since the bank did not claim such amounts, and the plaintiff fully repaid the debt under the court decision, there are no grounds for retaining the car pledge.
Case No. 991/8546/23 dated 07/11/2024
The court of cassation instance established that the reporting judge of the appellate court made significant violations when: 1) did not properly verify whether the verdict relates to the rights and interests of the person in whose interests the appeal was filed; 2) proceeded to evaluate the arguments of the appeal on the merits at the stage of deciding on opening the proceedings, which contradicts the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 200/17250/16-к dated 05/11/2024
The court rejected the defense arguments about the need to release the convicted person from serving the sentence due to illness (Art. 84 of the Criminal Code), as it was not proven that the illness prevents serving the sentence. The court also did not find grounds for release from serving the sentence with probation (Art. 75 of the Criminal Code), taking into account the severity of the crime and its consequences, although it took into account the positive characteristics of the person.
Case No. 750/10009/19 dated 24/10/2024
Subject of dispute: appealing the appellate court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for receiving an improper benefit for influencing the decision of an official.
The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) the guilt of the convicted person is confirmed by a set of proper and admissible evidence, including the results of covert investigative actions; 2) no signs of crime provocation by law enforcement agencies were detected, as the initiative came from the accused himself; 3) the pre-trial investigation was conducted legally within the framework of a single criminal proceeding; 4) no violations of the accused’s rights during detention were established.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court verdict, which convicted the person under Part 2 of Art. 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to a fine of 1500 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens.
Case No. 466/4414/15-к dated 05/11/2024
The court of cassation instance established significant violations of the criminal procedural law by the appellate court: conducting a hearing via WhatsApp messenger without proper technical support for video conferencing, absence of a ruling on remote case consideration, improper explanation of rights to the accused. The appellate court also did not provide proper assessment of the defense arguments regarding the groundlessness of the civil claim by the victims.
