Case No. 754/15954/20 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the decision to release a person from criminal liability due to the expiration of statute of limitations for forgery of a seal and an investment agreement. The Court of Cassation Instance established that lower courts made significant violations because: 1) the issue of release from criminal liability was resolved at the preparatory hearing stage, when the court did not have the authority to establish the factual circumstances of the case; 2) the court of first instance improperly presented the circumstances of suspicion as established facts; 3) the participation of the victim (LLC “Firm “T.M.M.”) was not ensured during the case review. The Supreme Court revoked the decisions of the first and appellate courts and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 401/2378/21 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: challenging the appellate court’s verdict regarding finding a person guilty of causing minor bodily injuries that resulted in a short-term health disorder. The court in making its decision was guided by: 1) the defendant’s guilt is confirmed by a set of evidence – witness testimonies, surveillance camera recordings, specialist and expert conclusions; 2) the specialist’s conclusion is an admissible evidence in criminal misdemeanor cases according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine; 3) the appellate court correctly evaluated all evidence and reasonably concluded about the person’s guilt. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict in terms of finding the person guilty, but modified it in terms of sentencing – excluding the assignment of a specific punishment term, as the person is released from punishment due to the expiration of statute of limitations.
Case No. 755/25/21 dated 25/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court’s ruling in a criminal case regarding the accusation of a person in robbery (Part 3 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court does not provide arguments for the adopted decision, as this is only the operative part of the resolution. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court discovered significant violations in the case review by the appellate court, which became the basis for revoking its decision. At the same time, the court considered it necessary to keep the defendant in custody during the new appellate review. Based on the results of reviewing the cassation complaint, the Supreme Court partially satisfied it, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, and referred the case for a new appellate review, choosing a preventive measure for the defendant in the form of detention.Case No. 953/8874/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – the victim’s appeal against the closure of criminal proceedings regarding the theft of a fence worth 4,009 UAH, with the perpetrator not identified. The court was guided by the following: 1) the inquiry body conducted a comprehensive and thorough investigation, interviewing numerous witnesses and conducting necessary investigative actions; 2) insufficient evidence was obtained to notify a specific person of suspicion; 3) the 2-year statute of limitations for criminal liability for a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has expired. The Supreme Court rejected the victim’s cassation appeal and supported the decisions of lower courts to close the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 592/18486/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for evading conscription during mobilization. The court was guided by the fact that the accused, having received a summons for conscription, deliberately failed to appear at the military commissariat at the specified time without valid reasons. His attempts to obtain a deferment were made only 10 days before the date of appearance, which indicates an intention to evade mobilization. The court also took into account that the accused had no legal grounds for deferment. The Supreme Court upheld the first instance verdict, which sentenced the person to 3 years of imprisonment for evading conscription during mobilization.
Case No. 557/356/23 dated 21/11/2024
The court, when considering the case, was guided by the fact that domestic violence is a continuing offense that has acquired signs of systematicity after the previous verdict was issued. Therefore, when sentencing, Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Code was correctly applied (not Part 4 of Article 70 as requested by the defense). The court also took into account all circumstances of the case, including the person of the perpetrator, who had previously been convicted of a similar crime but did not correct his behavior.
Case No. 308/10947/19 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the appellate court’s decision to release from serving a sentence with probation a person convicted of traffic rules violation that caused serious bodily injuries. The cassation instance court found that the appellate court did not provide adequate grounds for releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence, did not take into account the severity of the crime and its consequences (the victim became disabled), and did not fully investigate the issue of compensation for damages to the victim. The Supreme Court indicated that under such circumstances, release from serving a sentence with probationTranslation:
The application of the law is incorrect. The Supreme Court cancelled the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 161/15802/21 dated 08/10/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not properly verify the convicted person’s arguments about the absence of their official status and intent to misappropriate funds. The appellate court also created contradictions by stating that PERSON_10 committed crimes as an official of the village council, although the prosecution claimed their official status as the actual owner of an individual entrepreneur.
Case No. 755/4833/19 dated 14/11/2024
The subject of dispute is challenging the appellate court’s refusal to restore the term for appealing the verdict in a criminal case under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal drug trafficking). Although the operative part does not specify the court’s motives, the fact of partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal and cancellation of the appellate court’s ruling indicates that the Supreme Court considers the refusal to restore the term for appeal unjustified. The court decided that the issue of valid reasons for missing the term requires a new review in the appellate instance. The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 213/1224/13-k dated 20/11/2024
The court established that the driver was moving at a speed exceeding 66 km/h in a populated area and did not take appropriate measures to prevent hitting a cyclist, although he had a technical ability to do so. The fact that the cyclist also violated traffic rules does not exempt the driver from liability, as his violations were in causal connection with the victim’s death.
Case No. 367/4424/23 dated 18/11/2024
The subject of dispute concerns the correctness of calculating the sentence serving period for a person who committed new crimes before the previous verdict was issued. The court was guided by the fact that according to Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, when sentencing under a new verdict, it is necessary to include partially or fully served punishment from the previous verdict in the final sentence term. The court also took into account that the accused PERSON_6 committed new crimes (theft, robbery, and illegal weapon handling) before the previous verdict of June 29, 2023, therefore, it is correct to calculate the sentence term from the moment of actual detention on May 18, 2023.
