Case No. 473/1381/22 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appealing a court verdict against a person convicted of premeditated murder for mercenary motives and robbery.
The court was guided by the following main arguments: 1) the defendant’s guilt is confirmed by a set of evidence, including forensic and molecular genetic examination results, witness testimonies, and surveillance camera recordings; 2) all investigative actions were conducted in compliance with procedural legislation, and the evidence is admissible; 3) the defense’s version of innocence is refuted by the collected evidence, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by the convicted person.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court’s ruling, sentencing the person to 14 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Case No. 415/427/16-к dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Cassation appeal of first and appellate instance court verdicts regarding a person accused of attempted murder of two persons, illegal weapon handling, and hooliganism.
The court did not consider the case on its merits, as it established the absence of necessary criminal proceedings materials for making a decision. The Supreme Court found it impossible to review cassation complaints without a complete set of case materials, which need to be restored.
The court ruled to suspend the consideration of cassation complaints until the criminal proceedings materials are restored to the necessary extent.
Case No. 362/5056/13-к dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Appealing a court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for negligent storage of a firearm, which led to the death of the victim and caused unintentional serious bodily injury. The court established that the convicted person’s actions should be qualified only under Article 264 of the Criminal Code (negligent storage of a firearm), as the consequences in the form of serious bodily injuries are already covered by this article, and additional qualification under Article 128 of the Criminal Code is not required. The court also noted that at the time of the appellate review, the statute of limitations for criminal liability (5 years from the moment of the crime) had expired, therefore, the person is subject to release from criminal liability. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled previous court decisions, and released the person from criminal liability due to the expiration of limitation periods.
Case No. 646/2782/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the verdict of the Kharkiv Appellate Court regarding the conviction of a person for theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court did not provide detailed reasoning in the operative part of the resolution, as the full text of the decision will be announced later. However, the decision shows that significant violations were identified, which became the basis for canceling the verdicts of lower instance courts. It is important to note that the court decided on the immediate release of the accused from custody.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint of the defense, canceled the verdicts of the first and appellate instance courts, and referred the case for a new review to the first instance court.
Case No. 944/5845/22 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute concerns the form of the appellate court’s decision when worsening the convicted person’s situationHere is the translation of the first two cases:
Case No. 758/8848/19 dated 13/01/2025
Subject of dispute – release from criminal liability of a former “Berkut” regiment commander due to the expiration of statute of limitations for charges of abuse of power and violence against protest participants near the Hostynyi Dvir in Kyiv in 2013.
The court was guided by the following: 1) more than 10 years have passed since the commission of the crimes; 2) the accused did not object to the case closure on this basis; 3) release from liability due to the expiration of statute of limitations is unconditional and does not require establishing the person’s guilt or proving the fact of the crime.
The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decision to release the accused from criminal liability and close the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 695/558/19 dated 08/01/2025
Subject of dispute: return of water fund land plots located within the 100-meter coastal protection zone of the Kremenchuk Reservoir from illegal possession of private individuals.
The court’s main arguments: 1) The disputed land plots are located within the 100-meter coastal protection zone of the Kremenchuk Reservoir, confirmed by expert opinion and other evidence. 2) Water fund lands cannot be transferred to private ownership, except in cases directly specified by law. 3) The absence of a land management project for establishing the coastal protection zone does not mean its absence, as the sizes of such zones are directly defined by law. 4) The land plot purchaser, exercising reasonable caution, could and should have known that the plot belongs to water fund lands.
Court decision: The prosecutor’s claim was satisfied, and the defendants were ordered to return the disputed land plots to the territorial community.Case on Theft of Musical Instruments during Martial Law
The court established that the local and appellate courts made significant procedural law violations by applying a simplified case review procedure (without evidence examination), although the accused did not actually admit guilt and explained that he took the instruments for their preservation, not for theft purposes. Moreover, the courts did not properly ensure the accused’s right to defense by not explaining the possibility of obtaining free legal aid.
The Supreme Court canceled the lower courts’ verdicts and referred the case for new consideration to the court of first instance, releasing the accused from custody.
Case No. 935/2746/21 dated 16/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding conviction for intentional murder of two persons and illegal weapons handling.
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court unreasonably mitigated the sentence from life imprisonment to 15 years of imprisonment. The appellate court did not consider the increased public danger of the committed crime – pre-planned murder of two persons using automatic weapons, lack of remorse, and absence of mitigating circumstances. The court also correctly recognized the expert’s conclusion regarding narcotic substances as inadmissible evidence, as it was obtained before entering information into the Unified State Register of Pre-trial Investigations.
Based on the review results, the cassation court canceled the appellate court ruling and referred the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 592/7961/18 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal by LLC “VENBEST” of the Sumy Appellate Court ruling regarding PERSON_8.
Since only the operative part of the Supreme Court resolution is provided without the reasoning part, it is impossible to determine the arguments the court was guided by when making the decision. The full text of the resolution is to be announced on January 20, 2025.
The Supreme Court left the Sumy Appellate Court ruling unchanged and rejected the cassation complaint of LLC “VENBEST”.
Case No. 730/1093/21 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding conviction of a minor for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm resulting in the victim’s death.
The court in making its decision was guided by: 1) the convicted person’s actions were correctly qualified under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as he acted with indirect intent regarding causing grievous bodily harm and with negligence regarding the victim’s death; 2) criminal proceedings against the minor were conducted with observance of all special procedural guarantees; 3) the imposed punishment of 7 years of imprisonment is fair and corresponds to the crime’s severity and the convicted person’s personality.
The Supreme Court left the previous instances’ decisions unchanged and rejected the defense counsel’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 991/7774/24 dated 20/01/2025
The subject of dispute is recognizing assets as unreasonable and their recovery to state revenue, specifically an apartment belonging to PERSON_5.
Since the decision provides only the operative part (full text will be composed on January 24, 2025), the court’s reasoning is not disclosed. However, it can be noted that the case was considered by the High Anti-Corruption Court under…Based on the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s claim, indicating probable evidence of asset acquisition with funds whose legal origin was not proven. The court decided to fully satisfy the claim and seize the apartment at the specified address in favor of the state.
Case No. 755/8966/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s decision in a criminal case regarding a person accused of theft (Part 4, Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court decided to close the criminal proceedings, guided by the fact that the law establishing criminal liability for the committed act has lost its force. This is an unconditional ground for closing criminal proceedings according to paragraph 4-1, part 1, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as the act is no longer considered criminally punishable. Based on the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the decisions of lower courts, and closed the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 935/2746/21 dated 16/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing against the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding a person convicted of intentional murder and illegal weapons handling. 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 cassation court identified significant violations committed by the appellate court, which require a new review of the case. At the same time, the court considered it necessary to keep the accused in custody during the new appellate review. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 295/3702/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against first and appellate instance court decisions regarding a group of persons in criminal proceedings. Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision – they will be presented in the full text of the resolution. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the cassation court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments about the incorrectness of lower courts’ decisions. The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the decisions of first and appellate instance courts, and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court.
Case No. 295/3702/23 dated 14/01/2025
The court noted that after separating materials regarding three suspects into separate proceedings, the main proceedings became ‘factual’ (without suspect persons). Therefore, different calculation rules applied to it – 18 months from entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, as well as special rules regarding non-inclusion of terms during martial law. The court emphasized that pre-trial investigation terms protecting suspects’ rights cannot affect other investigations not related to them.
Case No. 554/8045/20 dated 15/01/2025
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the appellate court reasonably did not consider sincere repentance as a mitigating circumstance, as the convicted person did not show genuine remorse; 2) difficult financial situation cannot justify…Case No. 415/427/16-k dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Consideration of cassation appeals by defense attorneys against first and appellate instance court verdicts regarding the convicted PERSON_8. The court was guided by the fact that criminal case materials were lost due to martial law and were not transferred from the Lysychansk City Court to the Petropavlivka District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, where territorial jurisdiction was changed. Attempts to restore case materials were not fully successful. Without complete case materials, it is impossible to conduct a proper verification of cassation appeal arguments, especially regarding alleged procedural law violations. The Supreme Court decided to remove the case from cassation review until full restoration of criminal proceedings materials.
Case No. 944/5845/22 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court ruling in criminal proceedings against a person charged with fraud, previously convicted of theft and robbery. The court did not provide arguments for the adopted decision, as this is only the operative part of the ruling. However, from the materials, it is evident that the accused was previously conditionally sentenced, but the suspension of sentence was revoked, and she was sent to serve the actual sentence. A new charge was brought against her under Part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code (fraud). The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court ruling, and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 761/1379/25 dated 16/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Defense attorneys’ motion to change territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings regarding extension of pre-trial investigation period. Since the ruling contains only the operative part without reasoning, it is impossible to determine the specific court arguments. However, according to Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, changing the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings is possible only with substantiated grounds, which were obviously not proven by the defense attorneys in this case. The Supreme Court denied the defense attorneys’ motion to transfer materials from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
Case No. 606/1789/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the decision to apply compulsory medical measures to a person who, in a state of insanity, attacked a police officer and caused bodily injuries. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the attack on a police officer and causing bodily injuries is confirmed by victim testimonies, police body camera recordings, and forensic medical examinations; 2) according to a psychiatric examination, the person suffered from a chronic mental illness and could not understand their actions; 3) when qualifying socially dangerous acts of an insane person, only the objective side is considered, without assessing the mental attitude towards the committed actions. The Supreme Court upheld the lower instance courts’ decision to apply compulsory medical measures to the person.Compulsory medical measures in the form of hospitalization to a psychiatric facility with regular supervision.
Case No. 621/468/19 dated 15/01/2025
The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of the convict’s arguments about the unproven nature of his guilt, did not analyze the evidence of prosecution in terms of its sufficiency, and did not provide convincing reasons for rejecting the defense arguments. In particular, the court did not properly investigate the fact that neither the victim nor the witnesses saw the convict during the attack, and the conclusion about his guilt was based solely on the fact of his presence near the crime scene.
Case No. 753/20084/21 dated 14/01/2025
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the defendant’s actions were situational, spontaneous, without direct intent to cause bodily harm to the police officer. This is confirmed by witness testimonies, who did not see a purposeful strike, and the video recording from the police officer’s body camera. The court also took into account that the defendant denied intentionally striking, explaining that he might have accidentally touched the police officer when turning away from the gas canister.
Case No. 755/8966/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – legality of criminal prosecution for theft of property worth less than 2,684 hryvnias under conditions of legislative changes. The court was guided by the fact that on August 9, 2024, Law No. 3886-IX came into effect, which raised the threshold value of property for qualifying theft as a criminal offense. The United Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court concluded that this law has retroactive effect and cancels criminal liability for petty theft. Since the value of the stolen property in the case was less than the limit established by the new law, the act ceased to be criminally punishable. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and closed the criminal proceedings due to the loss of force of the law establishing criminal liability for this act.
Case No. 755/20688/19 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Appealing the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following main arguments: 1) The defendant’s guilt is confirmed by a set of proper and admissible evidence – witness testimonies, expert conclusions, investigation protocols; 2) The investigative experiment, during which the defendant detailed the circumstances of the crime, was conducted in compliance with procedural requirements and with the participation of a defense lawyer; 3) The defendant’s statements about psychological pressure during the investigation were not confirmed by the forensic psychological examination. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court, which sentenced the person to 15 years of imprisonment for intentional murder.
Case No. 522/22113/17 dated 16/01/2025
The court denied the claim, guided by the fact that: 1) according to the terms of the credit agreement, the borrower gave consent to the transfer of his personal data and information constituting banking secrecy to third parties in the assignment of claims1) the plaintiff did not prove the fact of the defendants’ unlawful behavior, the existence of moral damage itself, and the causal link between the bank’s actions and the damage caused; 2) the claimed amount of moral damage is not substantiated by anything.
Case No. 990SCGC/20/24 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the decision of the High Council of Justice to bring a judge to disciplinary responsibility for unjustified delay in considering administrative offense cases. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the judge allowed unjustified delay in considering cases by scheduling court sessions with unreasonably large intervals (2-3 months); 2) did not take appropriate measures for timely consideration of cases within the time limits established by law; 3) improperly planned court sessions, which led to the expiration of administrative penalties. At the same time, the judge’s reference to heavy workload cannot be an excuse for improper work organization. The Supreme Court left the judge’s complaint unsatisfied, confirming the legality of the High Council of Justice’s decision to bring her to disciplinary responsibility in the form of a warning.
Case No. 310/1682/18 dated 21/01/2025
The court in rendering the decision was guided by the fact that: 1) no inaccurate data were detected during the declaration registration; 2) the plaintiff did not provide evidence of inaccurate data in the declaration; 3) after registering the ownership right, the declaration of readiness of the object exhausted its effect, therefore its cancellation will not have legal consequences.
Case No. 461/1980/17 dated 15/01/2025
Subject of dispute: claiming non-residential premises with a total area of 30.2 sq.m from illegal possession, which belonged to the territorial community of Lviv. The court in rendering the decision was guided by the fact that: 1) Lviv City Council and its Communal Property Department were aware of the premises’ departure from communal ownership as early as October 2009, which is confirmed by relevant correspondence; 2) the claim was filed only in 2017, i.e., with a missed three-year statute of limitations; 3) the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeals of Lviv City Council and its Communal Property Department unsatisfied, and the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 760/857/22 dated 15/01/2025
The cassation instance court noted that the appellate court prematurely satisfied the application without examining all important evidence. In particular, the forensic examination conclusion of the exhumed body, which could confirm or refute the fact of the serviceman’s death, was not requested. The court emphasized that for declaring a person deceased, not assumptions are required, but sufficient evidence that provides grounds for a probable conclusion about death.
Case No. 617/1855/19 dated 15/01/2025
The cassation instance court noted that the appellate court did not properly examine evidence regarding the location of the land plot in the coastal protection zone of the reservoir and the presence of an archaeological monument. In particular, the court unreasonably rejected the technical report provided by the prosecutor and accepted the expert’s conclusion drawn up without examining the land plot.
