Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the question of the possibility of appellate review of an investigating judge’s ruling on the vacating of property seizure, which the court of appeal refused to review due to the formal absence of such a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of Ukraine.
2. The panel of judges of the Supreme Court concluded that it is necessary to depart from the legal position of the Joint Chamber, which previously limited the right to appellate review of decisions regarding the vacating of property seizure. The Court emphasized that in interpreting procedural norms, one should be guided not only by the literal text of the law but also by the essence of interference with the fundamental right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. It was underscored that rulings on the vacating of seizure have the same legal consequences as initial rulings on its imposition; therefore, the impossibility of appealing them violates the principle of a fair balance. The Court drew an analogy with the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which has repeatedly pointed to the need to ensure access to justice even in cases where certain procedural decisions are not explicitly named in the list of appealable ones. The panel is convinced that the right to appellate review of such rulings is implicitly contained in Clause 9, Part 1, Article 309 of the CPC of Ukraine. Thus, the Court substantiated that formalism in the titles of court decisions should not impede the correction of judicial errors.
3. The Court decided to refer the case to the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court for the purpose of resolving the issue of departing from the previous legal position.
