Case No. 202/4400/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – a prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision to mitigate the punishment for a person convicted of illegal drug trafficking. The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a milder punishment), as it did not substantiate how the circumstances it referred to (sincere repentance, positive characteristics, sports achievements, etc.) significantly reduce the degree of severity of the committed crime. The court indicated that these circumstances may be grounds only for imposing the minimum punishment within the sanction of the article, but not for going beyond its limits. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review, stating that the imposed punishment using Article 69 of the Criminal Code is too lenient and does not correspond to the severity of the committed crime.
Case No. 175/4683/18 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in a criminal case charging a person with violating traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code). The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the ruling, as the full text of the decision will be announced later. However, from the text, it is clear that the Supreme Court found no grounds for revoking or changing the challenged court decisions of lower instances. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instances unchanged and dismissed the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 202/2174/23 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against a verdict regarding a person convicted under Article 114-2, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized dissemination of information about the movement of weapons, armaments, and ammunition into Ukraine, movement, displacement, or deployment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine). Since only the operative part of the document is provided, the specific arguments of the court are not disclosed. However, the court reviewed the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal in full and concluded that there were no grounds for its satisfaction. The court agreed with the legal assessment and conclusions of the appellate court regarding the convict’s guilt. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal and left the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court unchanged.
Case No. 709/407/22 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against a verdict regarding two persons convicted of illegal fishing using prohibited fishing gear. The court was guided by the fact that the convicts’ guilt was fully proven by witness testimonies, crime scene examination protocols, and expert conclusions. The defense’s version that the defendants were fishing with spinning rods was refuted, as no spinning rods were found at the crime scene. The court also noted that the totality of evidence excludes any other reasonable explanation of the event other than the commission of a criminal offense by these individuals. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s decision unchanged and refused to satisfy the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 233/2440/20 dated 29/10/2024
The court established that the convict entered the victim’s house with the intent to steal her jewelry, strangled her during the attack, and seized gold jewelry worth 4,043 hryvnias. The court found that the defendant’s actions were intentional, he was aware of their socially dangerous nature, and desired the victim’s death. The defense’s arguments about the absence of intent to murder and robbery, as well as the inadmissibility of evidence, were deemed unfounded.
Case No. 587/288/18 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against the court’s verdict regarding illegal possessionCase No. 272/639/19 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appeal of a court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm to the victim by punching her in the face.
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the defendant, being physically stronger than the female victim, inflicted a strong blow to her face, being aware of the possibility of her falling and sustaining serious injuries; 2) as a result of the blow, the victim fell and hit her head on stones, receiving serious bodily injuries in the form of a skull fracture and brain trauma; 3) although the defendant did not directly desire such consequences, he consciously assumed them, which indicates an intentional form of guilt.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court, which sentenced the defendant to 5 years of imprisonment for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm.
Case No. 756/847/17 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appeal of the first instance court verdict and appellate ruling regarding the conviction of a person for organizing an intentional murder with aggravating circumstances.
The court in making its decision was guided by the need to review the imposed punishment, taking into account the rules of crime combination and crediting the pre-trial detention period. An important aspect was the application of the principle of absorption of a less severe punishment by a more severe one in the presence of a previous verdict. The court also took into account the need to confiscate the convict’s property, but with the exclusion of housing from the list of property subject to confiscation.
Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense’s cassation appeals, modifying the previous court decisions and imposing a final punishment of 15 years of imprisonment with property confiscation, except for housing.
Case No. 203/3699/19 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appeal of the appellate court verdict regarding the imposition of actual imprisonment instead of conditional release for stealing communication cables.
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the convict had previously been repeatedly convicted of property crimes, served real punishment, but did not correct his ways and again committed a similar crime, having an unexpunged criminal record. At the same time, the court took into account sincere remorse as a mitigating circumstance and recidivism as an aggravating circumstance. The imposed punishment was deemed necessary and sufficient for the convict’s correction and prevention of new crimes.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s verdict on imposing a punishment of 3 years of imprisonment and denied satisfaction of the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 726/464/19 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appeal of the court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for illegal drug trafficking committed as part of an organized group.
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the existence of an organized group of four persons with a stable composition and clear division of roles was proven; 2) it was confirmed that the convict was an active participant in this group.Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
1. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint without satisfaction, only partially changing the wording regarding the classification of cannabis and cannabis resin, which are no longer considered particularly dangerous narcotic substances.
Case No. 464/7111/14-k dated 14/11/2024
Subject of dispute – the convict’s application for clarification of the Supreme Court’s resolution dated January 22, 2020. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the ruling, stating only that the full text of the decision will be announced later, as its preparation requires significant time. The court was guided by the provisions of Articles 376, 380, and 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court denied the convict’s request for clarification of the resolution dated January 22, 2020.
2. Case No. 161/4116/24 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal due to missed appeal deadline.
The court was guided by the fact that the appellant filed the first appeal on time (within the 7-day period), albeit with a procedural violation – directly to the appellate court instead of the local court. After receiving a notification about the incorrect filing, he immediately submitted the complaint again through the local court. The Supreme Court believes that refusing to restore the appeal deadline in such a situation would be an excessive formalism and would unjustifiably restrict the person’s right to appellate review of the case.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new review.
3. Case No. 199/6828/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Review by the Supreme Court of lower instance court verdicts regarding the conviction of a person for state treason and illegal handling of weapons.
Main arguments of the court:
1) It is proven that the accused deliberately transmitted information about the location of military facilities and equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to a representative of Russian special services via messenger.
2) Collected evidence (search protocols, phone expertise, correspondence) is admissible and reliable.
3) The actions of the accused were correctly qualified as state treason, as he consciously provided assistance to a representative of a foreign state in conducting subversive activities against Ukraine.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdicts of lower instance courts, which sentenced the person to 15 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property for state treason and illegal handling of weapons.
4. Case No. 136/53/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s decision in a criminal case regarding violation of road traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
As this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is clear that a cassation complaint by the defender was considered regarding the ruling of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court dated December 6, 2023, concerning the accused PERSON_7.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the Vinnytsia Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged and the defender’s cassation complaint without satisfaction.
5. Case No. 444/856/23 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appeal by the prosecutor against the appellate court’s decision in a case involving a citizen of the Russian Federation accused of encroaching on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, inciting national hostility, and justifying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.
The court did not provide detailed reasoning in the operative part of the decision, noting that the full text of the resolution will be prepared later due to the significant volume of work. However, the fact of partial satisfaction of the prosecutor’s cassation complaint is noted.The prosecutor’s statement indicates that the court found significant violations in the appellate instance decision that require a new review of the case. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the decision of the Lviv Appellate Court, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate court.
Case No. 202/4400/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding an accused person in illegal drug trafficking. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, noting only that the full text of the ruling would be announced later. However, the decision shows that the court established significant violations in the case review by the appellate court, which require a new case review. At the same time, the court considered it necessary to apply a preventive measure to the accused in the form of detention. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, appointed a new case review, and chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 199/6828/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing against the first and appellate instance court verdicts regarding a person’s conviction for state treason and illegal weapons handling. The Supreme Court found no grounds for revoking or changing previous court decisions. Since this is only the operative part, specific court arguments are not provided, but the court recognized the decisions of previous instances as legal and substantiated. The court left the first and appellate instance verdicts unchanged and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 359/13106/21 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against an acquittal of a person accused of violating the procedure for international transfers of goods subject to state export control (Part 1, Article 333 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision but notes that the full text of the ruling will be announced later. It is important to note that both the first instance court and the appellate court made decisions in favor of the accused, acquitting them. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged and refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, finally confirming the person’s acquittal.
Case No. 536/1359/23 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing against a court verdict regarding a serviceman who voluntarily left a military unit during martial law. The court was guided by the fact that during the first instance review, all procedural requirements were observed – the accused voluntarily admitted guilt, agreed to a simplified case review, understood the essence of the accusation and the consequences of such review. Technical records of court sessions, contrary to the defense’s claims, were available and confirmed the procedure compliance. The appellate court properly reviewed the complaint only within the stated requirements regarding the fairness of punishment. The Supreme Court left the first and appellate instance verdicts unchanged, refusing to satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 136/53/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing against a court verdict regarding a driver who caused a road traffic accident with severe bodily injuries due to traffic rules violation when exiting a secondary road. The court was guided by the fact that the driver PERSON_7’s guilt is fully proven by a set of evidence: witness testimonies, road accident scene inspection protocol, automotive technical expertise conclusions, and other case materials. The expertise established that the cause of the road traffic accident was the driver’s violation of road sign requirements ‘Give Way’.The road when exiting the main road. The defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence and the absence of a road sign were deemed unfounded. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which found PERSON_7 guilty of violating traffic safety rules with a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment with a probationary period of 1 year.
Case No. 263/13128/18 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s decision regarding a person convicted of participation in a terrorist organization, illegal handling of weapons, and a terrorist act. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, noting only that the full text of the ruling would be announced later. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the court found grounds for partial satisfaction of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and decided that the case requires a new appellate review. As a result of the review, the Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court, while extending the detention of the accused for 60 days.
Case No. 643/9869/20 dated 04/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the accused PERSON_6 parked the car in compliance with all traffic rules – at the right edge of the roadway, where parking was not prohibited. The accident occurred solely due to a violation of rules by another driver who was moving at night with a significant speed excess. The court also established that the traffic rules regarding emergency signals, which the prosecution referred to, only apply to stopping, not parking of vehicles.
Case No. 750/9588/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of dispute – legality of returning a vehicle to its owner, which was used as a tool for a crime involving intentional infliction of serious bodily harm. The cassation instance court pointed out that the appellate court did not properly verify the possibility of applying special confiscation of the vehicle. In particular, it was not investigated whether the owner truly has a real interest in returning the property, considering that they have been abroad for a long time and provided the convicted person with a power of attorney to dispose of the vehicle. The court also emphasized that when resolving the issue of special confiscation, the terms ‘owner’ and ‘legal possessor’ are used as alternatives, and the law does not give preference to the rights of the owner over the legal possessor. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to thoroughly check the grounds for special confiscation of the vehicle.
Case No. 175/4683/18 dated 12/11/2024
The court established that the driver PERSON_6, driving a Hyundai Santa Fe, violated traffic rules while making a turn, which led to a collision with a Skoda Octavia, which after the impact drove onto the oncoming lane and collided with a motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the motorcycle driver died, and the passenger received serious bodily injuries. The driver PERSON_6’s guilt was proven by witness testimonies, expert conclusions, and other appropriate evidence. The court rejected the defense’s version that PERSON_6’s vehicle was stationary during the collision.
Case No. 450/2757/22 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in a criminal case regarding a person accused of illegal drug trafficking. The court did not provide arguments for its decision, as this is only the operative part of the ruling. In such a case, the court only announces its decision, and the full text with motivation will be prepared later. This is allowed by procedural law when the preparation of the full text
