Case No. 595/1754/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case of rape of a minor daughter by her father.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The guilt of PERSON_7 is confirmed by a set of evidence: testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert conclusions
– The victim identified her father by his characteristic cough and smell of alcohol
– Expertise established bodily injuries confirming the fact of violence
– The court considered the testimony of the victim and experts who did not reveal a tendency to fantasize
Court Decision: Leave the verdict unchanged, excluding only references to previous conviction which has already been expunged.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court supported the conclusions of previous instances about proving the guilt of PERSON_7 beyond reasonable doubt.
Case No. 755/2715/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Sentencing for a crime under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal possession of narcotic substances), taking into account the previous verdict.
Main Arguments of the Court: IMPORTANTLY, the court referred to the previous position of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court, which established that if a person was previously released from serving a sentence with probation, and then committed another crime before the previous verdict was issued, the provisions of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on imposing a final sentence are not applied. Each verdict is executed independently, meaning the previous probationary verdict and the new verdict with actual punishment are not combined.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, excluding provisions on imposing a final sentence for a set of criminal offenses and leaving the punishment in the form of a fine of 17,000 hryvnias.
Case No. 296/4277/22 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appealing the court verdict regarding sentencing for a traffic accident with fatal consequences.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the imposed punishment of 3 years of imprisonment is fair and necessary. Second, the court considered the severity of the crime that led to a person’s death and recognized that the convict’s correction is impossible without actual serving of punishment. Third, the court weighed the person of the accused, specifically his status as a territorial defense volunteer and absence of previous convictions, but decided that this is not sufficient grounds for exemption from punishment.
Court Decision: Leave the appellate court verdict unchanged, the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case No. 616/905/19 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Restoration of procedural term by the prosecutor for appealing an acquittal verdict under martial law conditions.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court recognized that the circumstances of the full-scale RF invasion, territory occupation, and real threat to the lives of prosecution employees can be a valid reason for missing the procedural term. The court emphasized that each case must be considered individually, taking into account specific circumstances, including territorial location, danger.Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court ruling and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 235/1783/23 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of a sentence against a person convicted of drug possession without intent to sell.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the previous court decisions (district and appellate courts) are lawful and substantiated. The court established that the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is indisputable and collected in compliance with all procedural norms. The defense lawyer’s arguments did not contain convincing grounds for cancellation or modification of previous court decisions.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and rejected the cassation appeal of the defense lawyer.
Case No. 521/16782/13-k dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal liability of a mother for non-fulfillment of parental duties and leaving minor children without care.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. It was established that PERSON_6 systematically failed to fulfill parental duties, left children without supervision and proper living conditions during 2011-2012.
2. As a result of her inaction, the children suffered serious harm – the youngest child was found to have a delay in mental development and maladaptation syndrome.
3. Witness testimonies and expert conclusions confirmed the fact of the mother’s deliberate non-fulfillment of parental duties, which caused serious consequences for the children.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court exempted PERSON_6 from criminal liability due to the expiration of statute of limitations and closed the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 591/7096/21 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal by convicted PERSON_6 against district and appellate court verdicts in a criminal case about thefts.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court decided that the case requires additional collegial review in the joint chamber due to the complexity of legal issues related to the qualification of criminal offenses. The court considers it necessary to study the case circumstances and legal assessment of previous court decisions in more detail. The panel of judges concluded that the cassation appeal deserves special attention and requires comprehensive analysis.
Court Decision: Transfer the criminal proceedings for review to the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 398/491/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation review of a verdict regarding a person who attempted an open theft of a mobile phone during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court identified significant procedural violations in the appellate proceedings, particularly improper notification of the accused and their defense lawyer about the court hearing date. The court noted that the case materials lack evidence of summons received by process participants, and the appellate court did not take measures to clarify this issue. Additionally, the court did not find indisputable grounds for mandatory defense lawyer participation in the case.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court rulingHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
of the court, to assign a new hearing in the appellate court and to choose a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 761/12772/22 dated 13/03/2025
The case concerns a road traffic accident with a fatal outcome.
The main arguments of the court in making the decision were that the driver PERSON_9 violated traffic rules, as a result of which he ran over a pedestrian at a crossing, causing the pedestrian’s death. The court thoroughly analyzed the circumstances of the case, took into account the characteristics of the convicted person, but found that the imposed punishment of 3 years of imprisonment was fair and necessary for the correction of the guilty party and prevention of new crimes.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the appellate court’s verdict unchanged, fully supporting the previously imposed punishment of PERSON_9.
Case No. 585/5019/18 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: The driver PERSON_7 is accused of violating traffic rules, as a result of which serious bodily injuries were inflicted on the victim PERSON_9.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Examinations and evidence confirmed that PERSON_7 violated paragraphs 10.1 and 16.13 of the Traffic Rules by turning left without giving way to the oncoming motorcyclist.
2. The court thoroughly analyzed the actions of both drivers and concluded that the actions of PERSON_7 were the cause of the road traffic accident.
3. The appellate court refuted the defense arguments about the possible guilt of the victim, noting that the victim had the right to expect compliance with traffic rules by other road users.
Court decision: To leave unchanged the verdict of the Romny City District Court, which sentenced PERSON_7 to 3 years of imprisonment for violating traffic rules.
Case No. 740/7638/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding the illegal sale of narcotic substances (cannabis) by PERSON_7.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly considered the defense lawyer’s motion to appoint an expertise of video and audio recordings of the operative purchase. The appellate court court formally agreed with the local court’s decision, without providing substantive motivation and without verifying the defense’s arguments regarding possible editing of evidence. The defense lawyer consistently argued about the non-authenticity of the files and requested an expertise, but his arguments remained without proper legal assessment.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint of the defense lawyer, canceled the appellate court’s ruling and assigned a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 344/10965/23 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict in a criminal case about a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (regarding PERSON_7).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint of the defense lawyer, paying special attention to the issue of confiscation of two vehicles “Mercedes-Benz Sprinter”. The court found that the previous decision of the appellate court regarding confiscation requires additional consideration and verification of the circumstances of vehicle seizure. The panel of judges considered it necessary to skTo cancel the decision of the appellate court specifically in the part concerning confiscation of property and assign a new review of this issue.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the resolution of the Ivano-Frankivsk Appellate Court in the part concerning confiscation of vehicles and assigned a new review in the appellate court, while leaving the previous decision unchanged in other parts.
Case No. 201/974/22 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the resolution of the Dnipro Appellate Court in a criminal case about murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court identified certain procedural violations in the previous appellate court resolution that require case review. The court concluded that the appellate instance decision needs additional study and comprehensive consideration. The panel of judges considered it necessary to cancel the previous decision and send the case for a new appellate review to ensure completeness and objectivity of judicial proceedings.
Court Decision: The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was partially satisfied, the resolution of the Dnipro Appellate Court was canceled, and a new review was assigned in the appellate court.
Case No. 599/2615/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s appeal against the court resolution on releasing a woman from serving a suspended sentence for distributing anti-Ukrainian materials on social networks.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that applying conditional release is legitimate, as the woman committed a non-serious crime for the first time, admitted her guilt, sincerely repented, is of respectable age (60 years), lost her housing due to occupation, and is positively characterized at her place of residence. The court emphasized the importance of an individual approach to sentencing and adherence to principles of fairness and proportionality.
Court Decision: The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was rejected, and the appellate court resolution remained unchanged.
Case No. 127/9315/23 dated 14/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appealing orders about reprimand, dismissal from the position of head of the medical and social expert commission, and warning.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the plaintiff indeed violated labor discipline, as evidenced by the inspection report of the commission’s work dated March 2, 2023.
2. Deficiencies identified during the inspection (improper storage of medical expert files, exceeding powers) are grounds for disciplinary action.
3. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide explanations regarding the identified violations, and her dismissal from the commission head position does not constitute dismissal from work, as she continued to work as a therapist.
Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal and leave the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 138/1081/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case about illegal acquisition, storage of psychotropic substances and attempted smuggling.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that PERSON_7 on January 25, 2023, entered into a conspiracy with an unidentified person to transport amphetamine across the border for sale, and had 6 packaged
