1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to close the criminal proceedings for individual episodes of theft committed by the convicted person, due to the decriminalization of the act, and the refusal to reclassify these actions as another crime.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court incorrectly applied the Law of Ukraine on Criminal Liability, namely, failed to apply the law that was subject to application. The appellate court did not take into account the provisions of Part 3 of Article 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the court to go beyond the scope of the accusation in terms of changing the legal classification, if this improves the position of the person. The Supreme Court noted that illegal entry into a vehicle may be qualified under Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code as illegal entry into another possession of a person, referring to Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The appellate court did not investigate the circumstances of illegal entry into vehicles, which is necessary for making a lawful decision. The court also referred to its own practice in similar cases, where theft involving entry into a car was reclassified as illegal entry into another possession of a person (Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code).
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance, and also chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.
