Case No. 522/13067/20 dated 10/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal as filed after the appeal deadline. The court was guided by the fact that the defense attorney did not provide sufficient evidence of timely filing of the appeal through a courier service on the last day of the appeal period (April 12, 2024). The courier service invoice did not contain the necessary details – stamps, complete data about the sender and recipient. Moreover, the courier service ‘Post Express’ is not registered in the unified state register of postal communication operators and therefore was not authorized to provide such services. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on returning the defense attorney’s appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 755/1821/23 dated 26/11/2024
The court took into account that the convicted person fully admitted guilt, sincerely repented, was first brought to criminal responsibility, has a disability and needs treatment. Her charitable activities and assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine after committing the crimes were also considered. The court concluded that the convicted person’s correction is possible without actual serving of the sentence, considering all circumstances of the case and her personality.
Case No. 637/1009/19 dated 10/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding intentional murder with extreme cruelty (paragraph 4, part 2, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). As this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the convicted PERSON_7 disagreed with the previous instances’ decisions and filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. The court reviewed the case in an open hearing with the participation of all parties, including the prosecutor, defense attorney, and the convicted person. The Supreme Court decided to leave the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, refusing to satisfy the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 766/2957/23 dated 11/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the Kherson Appellate Court’s verdict regarding conviction for illegal actions with narcotic substances and their sowing/cultivation. As this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments on the merits of the case. However, the decision shows that the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions and found no grounds to satisfy the defense attorney’s cassation appeal. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
Case No. 629/4227/19 dated 10/12/2024
The appellate court reclassified the defendant’s actions from Article 121, part 2 of the Criminal Code (intentional grievous bodily harm resulting in death) to Article 119, part 1 of the Criminal Code (involuntary manslaughter), as the grievous bodily harm was not a direct consequence of the blow, but a result of falling and hitting the head on the asphalt, which the defendant did not foresee but should have and could have foreseen. However, the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code and released the person from serving the sentence with probation, without properly considering the severity of the consequences and the victim’s position.
Case No. 509/7127/21 dated 04/12/2024
The court took into account that although the receipt was in the plaintiff’s possession, the defendant provided convincing evidence of loan repayment – electronic correspondence and an audio recording of a conversation with the original creditor, who confirmed receiving the funds. The court recognized these electronic evidence as admissible, as they allowed establishing the authors of the correspondence and its content, and their reliabilityHere is the translation of the provided legal text:
was not refuted by the plaintiff. It was also taken into account that at the time of receiving the loan, the defendant was married to the plaintiff’s son, and the funds were used for family needs.
Case No. 752/15842/20 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the mere fact of filing a petition for land allocation does not create legal grounds for obtaining it; 2) permission to develop a land management project is not a title-establishing act and does not guarantee acquisition of ownership; 3) state registration of the disputed land plot was carried out in accordance with the legislation on the basis of proper documents.
Case No. 752/10146/19 dated 12/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that witness testimonies were contradictory regarding the circumstances of the traffic accident, the investigative experiment protocol was deemed an improper evidence due to the use of a different vehicle and non-consideration of important circumstances, and the automotive technical expertise conclusion was deemed inadmissible, as it was based on data from an improperly conducted investigative experiment. The court also noted that the prosecution did not provide proper and sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case No. 591/5490/23 dated 10/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) crimes against the sexual integrity of minors have a high social danger and lead to deep mental trauma; 2) a suspended sentence in this case would not ensure the preventive function; 3) although the defendant sincerely repented and compensated for the damage, this is not a sufficient basis for exemption from actual serving of the sentence. At the same time, the court took into account mitigating circumstances and imposed a punishment below the lowest limit.
Case No. 212/2988/20 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of two persons for hooliganism (Part 2 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The cassation instance court established that in considering the case, the lower courts improperly used as evidence the forensic expert opinion No. 2001 dated 24.12.2019. Other evidence and circumstances of the case established by the courts of first and appellate instances were recognized as substantiated and lawful, which did not require cancellation of court decisions in whole. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaints by changing the court decisions by excluding references to the expert opinion, but leaving them unchanged in other parts.
Case No. 348/285/23 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – the victim’s appeal of the appellate court’s decision, which left unchanged the verdict regarding the driver who caused a traffic accident with serious consequences. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court made significant violations, as: 1) it formally approached the verification of the arguments of the appellate complaint and did not give them proper assessment; 2) did not substantiate the possibility of correcting the convicted person without actual serving of the sentence; 3) did not properly take into account the severity of the consequences of the crime when determining the amount of moral damage to the victim. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review, indicating that the imposed punishment with the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exemption from serving the sentence with probation) is too lenient given the severity of the crime and the absence of mitigating circumstances.
Case No. 947/19643/22 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding a serviceman convicted of desertion and state treason during the occupation of Crimea in 2014. The court found the person guilty, sinceCase No. 202/13808/23 dated 10/12/2024
It has been proven that the accused, being a deputy commander of a military unit, refused to execute an order for redeployment to the mainland part of Ukraine, did not report to the place of service, and transferred to the Russian Armed Forces. This is confirmed by testimony from fellow servicemen, documentary evidence, and materials from an official investigation. The court also took into account that the accused, as a deputy unit commander, was reliably aware of the redeployment order.
Based on the case review, the court sentenced the accused to 15 years of imprisonment.
The court decided that the accused’s actions were incorrectly qualified as collaborative activities under Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since collaboration is only possible in occupied territories, and the accused acted from a territory controlled by Ukraine. The court also considered that Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on unauthorized dissemination of information about the Armed Forces was adopted later and therefore takes precedence in application.
Case No. 991/8552/24 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – application of sanctions in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” based on a lawsuit by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The court of first instance made a decision in favor of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The third party, not making independent claims on the defendant’s side, disagreed with this decision and filed an appeal. The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court reviewed the case with representatives of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, with the defendant and third parties not appearing at the hearing.
The appellate court left the complaint unsatisfied and the first instance court’s decision unchanged, with the resolution becoming legally valid immediately after its announcement and not subject to cassation appeal.
Case No. 637/1009/19 dated 10/12/2024
The court established that the convicted person, while intoxicated, repeatedly struck the victim with fists and glass fragments over an extended period, causing multiple wounds, traumatic eye amputation, and other serious bodily injuries, after which he cut her throat, resulting in death. The nature of the injuries, their localization, and duration of infliction indicate intentional murder with extreme cruelty. The convicted person’s version about the presence of a third party at the crime scene was refuted by witness testimony and expert conclusions.
Case No. 591/5490/23 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the Poltava Appellate Court regarding a person accused of lewd acts against minors (Part 2, Article 156 of the Criminal Code) and hooliganism (Part 1, Article 296 of the Criminal Code). As this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, the text shows that the Supreme Court reviewed the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal in full at an open court hearing with the participation of all parties to the process, including the accused and his defender (via video conference).
The Supreme Court left the Poltava Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged and denied satisfaction of the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 939/191/24 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appeal by the prosecutor of court decisions in criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused of unauthorized abandonment of military service (Part 5, Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). As this is only the operative part of the resolution, specific court arguments are not provided. However, the decision shows that the Supreme Court found grounds for canceling lower court decisions and appointing a new case review, agreeing with the prosecutor’s arguments about the existence of significant…Supreme Court Ruling.
The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts, and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court.
Case No. 446/764/22 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the court verdict regarding conviction for rape of a minor child. The court in making its decision was guided by a set of evidence: testimony of the minor victim, her mother, witnesses, results of forensic medical and psychiatric examinations, protocols of investigative experiments and crime scene inspections. The court established that the absence of two fingers on the defendant’s left hand did not prevent the commission of the crime, and the victim’s testimony was consistent and truthful. The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance and appellate courts, which sentenced the person to 10 years of imprisonment for committing sexual acts against a minor.
Case No. 953/1070/23 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – legality of the court verdict regarding a person who transmitted information about the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s location in Kharkiv to RF representatives. The cassation instance court found that the appellate court made significant procedural violations: did not present the arguments of the defender’s appeal, did not provide responses to them, and unreasonably referred to the simplified procedure for considering the case in the first instance court. The court also noted that the punishment of 10 years of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court (instead of 12 years by the first instance verdict) is justified, as the maximum punishment was not properly motivated by the first instance court. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new appellate review, leaving the defendant in custody for 60 days.
Case No. 225/5571/19 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the court verdict regarding conviction for robbery, theft, and illegal entry into housing. The court was guided by the fact that the defendant’s actions were correctly qualified as robbery, as he used violence dangerous to the victim’s life and health to seize their property. The court took into account changes in legislation regarding petty theft and reclassified part of the theft actions to illegal entry into housing, and also closed proceedings regarding another theft episode due to decriminalization of the act. Based on the review results, the court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, changing the qualification of actions and imposing a final punishment of 7 years of imprisonment for robbery.
Case No. 991/5241/24 dated 11/12/2024
The court established that although the car was registered to the official’s mother, it was actually used by the civil servant and his wife, which is confirmed by issued powers of attorney and numerous traffic violation fines. At the same time, neither the mother nor the official had sufficient legal income to purchase such an expensive car – the difference between the car’s value and declared income was over 5 million hryvnias.
Case No. 286/2870/19 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling in criminal proceedings against a person convicted of violating road safety rules causing serious consequences (Part 2, Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is clear that the case has been reviewed in the first instance and appellate courts and is now being considered in cassation order based on the convicted person’s defender’s complaint. The panel of judges of the Supreme Court recognized that the previous court decisions are legal and substantiated.The Supreme Court left the challenged court decisions unchanged and denied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 225/5571/19 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Cassation review of the verdict against PERSON_7, convicted of a series of property crimes (theft and robbery).
Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that part of the convicted person’s actions were incorrectly qualified by lower courts. In particular, the episode from August 7, 2019, was reclassified from theft (Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code) to violation of housing inviolability (Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code), for which the person was released from punishment due to the expiration of statute of limitations. The court also closed the criminal proceedings in part of the charge under Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code and excluded the formulation regarding theft from July 14, 2019, from the verdict.
Court Decision: The Cassation Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s complaint, changed the qualification of actions and punishment, maintaining the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code (robbery) to 7 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 711/8709/19 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the bank issued the depositor’s funds to an unidentified person using a forged power of attorney and forged passport, confirmed by the bank’s internal investigation report; 2) the bank, as a professional participant in the financial market, is responsible for proper document verification when issuing funds; 3) non-compliance with legal requirements by bank employees cannot impose responsibility on a bona fide consumer.
Case No. 459/3471/23 dated 05/12/2024
The Cassation Court established that the appellate court did not provide adequate grounds for releasing the convicted person from serving punishment with probation. In particular, the genuine remorse of the accused was not proven, it was not substantiated how they assisted in solving the crime, and it was not explained how release from punishment during martial law would achieve the purpose of punishment and would not demotivate others from evading mobilization.
Case No. 335/1211/23 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision on determining the final punishment for the convicted person when replacing community service with probation supervision.
The court found that the appellate court incorrectly applied the law in determining the ratio between community service and probation supervision. According to the rules of Article 72 of the Criminal Code, there are two ways of such transfer, and the court should have chosen the one more favorable to the convicted person. By correct calculation, 100 hours of unserved community service should correspond to 12.5 days of probation supervision, not 20 days as determined by the appellate court.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and amended the appellate court’s ruling, determining the final punishment for the convicted person as probation supervision for 1 year and 12 days instead of 1 year and 20 days.
Case No. 947/19643/22 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Appeal of the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling in a criminal case against PERSON_7, accused of desertion and state treason.
Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, the document shows that the case went through review in three court instances, including cassation review based on the defense counsel’s complaint.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the court decisions of previous instances unchanged and deny satisfaction of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 607/13419/22 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of DisputeAppealing the Verdict of the First Instance Court and the Ruling of the Appellate Court in Criminal Proceedings for Charging a Person with Causing Light Bodily Injury (Part 1, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Unfortunately, since only the operative part of the Supreme Court’s ruling is provided, it is impossible to analyze the arguments the court was guided by when making the decision. In this situation, the court limited itself to drafting the operative part because a full decision requires significant time to prepare.
The Supreme Court left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged and the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint was not satisfied.
Case No. 592/9605/21 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Convicted Person Appealing the Verdict for Violation of Road Safety Rules (Part 1, Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court reviewed the convicted person’s cassation complaint against the appellate court’s decision and found no grounds for its satisfaction.
The Supreme Court left the Sumy Appellate Court’s ruling dated May 13, 2024, unchanged and the convicted person’s cassation complaint was not satisfied.
Case No. 991/4881/23 dated 12/12/2024
Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that the agreements comply with legislative requirements because: 1) the crime is qualified as a non-serious corruption offense, which allows for an agreement; 2) the accused provided truthful incriminating testimonies against each other; 3) the terms of the agreements do not violate the parties’ rights and correspond to public interests, particularly due to significant voluntary contributions by the accused for state needs; 4) the agreements were voluntary.
Case No. 754/17376/23 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Prosecutor Appealing the Appellate Court’s Decision in a Criminal Case Regarding a Person Charged with Illegal Acquisition and Storage of Narcotic Substances. Unfortunately, since only the introductory and operative parts of the Supreme Court’s ruling are provided, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments the court was guided by when making the decision. However, from the available text, it is evident that the Supreme Court found grounds for canceling the appellate instance’s decision.
Based on the results of reviewing the cassation complaint, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s requirements, canceled the Kyiv Appellate Court’s ruling, and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 754/8154/22 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the First Instance Court’s Verdict and the Appellate Court’s Ruling in a Criminal Case Regarding Robbery Committed under Part 4, Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The cassation instance court reviewed the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint against the lower instance courts’ decisions. Since only the introductory and operative parts are provided without the motivational part, it is impossible to establish the court’s specific arguments. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the Supreme Court found no grounds for canceling or changing the challenged court decisions.
The Supreme Court left the previous courts’ decisions unchanged and the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint was not satisfied.
Case No. 635/2849/21 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the First Instance Court’s Verdict and the Appellate Court’s Ruling in a Criminal Case under Part 2, Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Violation of Road Safety Rules Causing Serious Consequences). Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, it does not provide the court’s arguments for the decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court reviewed the convicted person’s and their defense lawyer’s cassation complaints against the previous instances’ decisions in an open court session with the participation of all parties to the process.
The Supreme Court…
