1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court to open appellate proceedings on a complaint against the ruling of the investigating judge on the refusal to review the ruling on the seizure of property based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open proceedings, since according to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, the ruling of the investigating judge based on the results of consideration of the application for review of the ruling on the seizure of property based on newly discovered circumstances is subject to appeal. The court also emphasized that the investigating judge, having refused to open proceedings on the application for review of the court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, made a decision not provided for by the provisions of Article 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court of cassation emphasized that since the provisions of paragraph 9 of Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code directly provide for the possibility of appealing the ruling of the investigating judge on the seizure of property, then, accordingly, the ruling based on the results of consideration of the application for review based on newly discovered circumstances of such a ruling of the investigating judge is also subject to appeal. The court departed from the previous position regarding the impossibility of reviewing the rulings of investigating judges based on newly discovered circumstances, taking into account the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
