1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to open appellate proceedings on the defense counsel’s appeal against the investigative judge’s ruling on the return of the motion to change the measure of restraint.
2. The court of cassation satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, stating that the appellate court prematurely refused to open appellate proceedings. The court noted that the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for the possibility of the investigative judge returning a motion to change the measure of restraint, and the appellate court, in refusing to open proceedings, formally applied Part 4 of Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also referred to the practice of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, which departed from the previous conclusions of the First Chamber of the CCC regarding the need to take into account the procedural prospects of the proceedings. The court indicated that in the event of a violation by the appellate court of the provisions of Clause 4, Part 3 of Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the ruling must be quashed and a new hearing appointed in the court of appellate instance.
3. The court ruled to quash the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and to appoint a new hearing in the court of appellate instance.
