Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the issue of whether a probation authority has the right to file an appellate appeal against a ruling of a court of first instance, by which a motion to cancel a suspended sentence was denied.
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of legal certainty and the necessity of ensuring the consistency of judicial practice. A key argument was the reference to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court dated June 1, 2026, in case No. 621/3410/23. The Court emphasized that an exhaustive list of persons entitled to appellate appeal is defined by Article 393 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The probation authority is not included in this list, as no provision of procedural law grants penal enforcement entities the right to appeal court decisions rendered as a result of the consideration of their motions. The Court noted that in such matters, only the convicted person, their defense counsel, legal representative, and the prosecutor have the right to appeal. At the same time, it was emphasized that the absence of the right to appeal does not deprive the probation authority of the possibility to re-apply to the court with a relevant motion after addressing the shortcomings.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to initiate appellate proceedings, and the cassation appeal of the probation authority was dismissed.
Note: In this decision, the Court confirms a departure from the previous position of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court (set forth in case No. 936/40/24), consolidating the conclusion of the Joint Chamber that penal enforcement agencies do not have the right to appellate appeal against decisions taken as a result of the consideration of their motions.
