1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The subject of the cassation review was the legality of a separate ruling (special ruling) of the appellate court, which initiated criminal proceedings regarding the actions of a trade union and a courier service due to suspicion of forging documents concerning the dispatch of an appeal.
2. **Arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the institution of a separate ruling is a procedural instrument for responding to violations of the law discovered exclusively during the consideration of a case on its merits. In this situation, the appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings, meaning it effectively did not commence the consideration of the case, and therefore lost the procedural opportunity to issue a separate ruling. The Court emphasized that a separate ruling cannot be an instrument for resolving issues that go beyond the scope of the judicial consideration of a specific dispute. It was also emphasized that the appellate court did not examine evidence on the merits; therefore, it did not have a sufficient basis for concluding that there were indications of a criminal offense. The Supreme Court pointed out that after the refusal to open proceedings, the consideration of the case was concluded, which precludes the further application of the mechanisms of Article 249 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine. The Court in its decision directly refers to the legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (in particular, in case No. 490/10876/23), confirming the consistency of the approach regarding the impossibility of issuing separate rulings outside the scope of the consideration of a case on its merits.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal and set aside the separate ruling of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal.
