Case No. 420/13707/22 dated 28/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the Administrative Services Center of the Kivertsi City Council improperly did not consider the plaintiff’s application for registration as an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) and did not issue the corresponding certificate. The court took into account that the plaintiff provided evidence of residence in Mariupol and the grounds for obtaining IDP status. The court also recognized the plaintiff’s right to compensation for moral damages due to the respondent’s unlawful actions.
Case No. 755/2821/23 dated 30/10/2024
The cassation court established that the appellate court violated the defendant’s right to defense by considering the case without his participation, although he was undergoing inpatient treatment and had previously informed the court about this through his defender. The court also rejected the defense’s argument about the decriminalization of cannabis-related actions, as the legislative changes only transferred cannabis from the list of prohibited narcotic substances to the list of substances with restricted circulation, but did not decriminalize its illegal circulation.
Case No. 678/9/22 dated 30/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the court verdict regarding a driver who caused a traffic accident with bodily injuries due to falling asleep while driving. The court rejected the defense’s arguments that the driver did not fall asleep but lost consciousness due to a heart attack, as medical evidence did not confirm this. The court considered witness testimonies about the vehicle moving unevenly before the accident, expert conclusions about the lack of medical data on loss of consciousness, and the fact that the driver did not complain about his health during work. The court also found the defense’s objections to the admissibility of the victim’s medical documents unfounded. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the first instance and appellate courts, which found the driver guilty of violating traffic safety rules.
Case No. 369/4157/22 dated 28/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: challenging by the prosecutor the court verdict against a person convicted of theft and attempted theft during martial law. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) Law No. 3886-IX dated 18.07.2024 increased the threshold value of property for qualifying theft as a criminal offense; 2) the value of stolen property (1,744.52 UAH) is less than 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens that were in effect in 2022; 3) this law has retroactive effect and decriminalizes the defendant’s actions under Part 2 of Art. 15 and Part 4 of Art. 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal – closed the criminal proceedings regarding the attempted theft due to decriminalization of the act, while maintaining the verdict for the main theft.
Case No. 936/901/22 dated 30/10/2024
The cassation court agreed with the arguments of the prosecutor and the victim’s representative that the appellate court groundlessly released the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation and did not impose an additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles. The court took into account that the convicted person did not show genuine remorse, did not compensate the victim’s side (except for 13,000 UAH for funeral expenses), and his admission of guilt was of a formal nature.
Case No. 759/4294/21 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging by the prosecutor an acquittal in a case of illegal handling of weapons (Part 1 of Art. 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as this is only a brief extract from the full text of the resolution. However, the decision shows that the cassation court found grounds for canceling the appellate court’s ruling and referring the case for a new trial.After a judicial review, partially satisfying the prosecutor’s complaint, the Supreme Court, based on the review results, canceled the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated June 11, 2024, and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 522/11302/20 from 25/10/2024
The appellate court, whose decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, proceeded from the fact that the disputed parking space is located outside the residential building on a municipal land plot, is not a real estate object, and cannot be an object of civil rights and state registration. The state registrar had no legal grounds to register ownership of such property, as the defendants did not acquire rights to the land plot in the manner prescribed by law. The court also recognized that the prosecutor correctly chose a negatory action as a method of protecting the territorial community’s rights.
Case No. 676/3722/20 from 30/10/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following arguments: testimony of the minor victim, confirmed by witness statements and expert conclusions; presence of the convict’s biological traces on the victim’s clothing; proper procedural documentation of evidence, including the protocol of identification and crime scene examination; absence of significant violations of criminal procedural law during pre-trial investigation and court proceedings.
Case No. 296/3673/22 from 15/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the court verdict regarding conviction for public denial of the Russian Federation’s armed aggression against Ukraine and justifying the actions of the aggressor country. The court was guided by the following arguments: testimony of numerous witnesses (school principal and colleagues) confirmed that the convicted publicly denied the fact of war, calling it a “special operation”, justified shelling of Ukrainian cities, and denied war crimes in Bucha and Borodyanka; the statements were public, occurring with open doors in the director’s office in the presence of other persons; witness testimonies were consistent, aligned with each other, and confirmed the fact of criminal offense. The Supreme Court left unchanged the first instance verdict, which found the convicted guilty under Part 1 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, imposing a punishment of deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for 10 years.
Case No. 991/4164/23 from 31/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant did not prove the legal origin of funds for purchasing real estate worth 2.9 million hryvnias. The donation agreement of 2.3 million hryvnias from the mother was declared void due to lack of notarial certification. The court recognized only 641,000 hryvnias from salary and apartment sale as the defendant’s legal income.
Case No. 728/999/23 from 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the court verdict regarding conviction for intentionally causing minor bodily injuries resulting in short-term health disorder. The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the convict’s guilt is fully proven by the victim’s testimony, witnesses, and forensic medical examination conclusion. Witness testimonies are consistent with each other and confirm the fact of bodily injuries caused specifically by the convict. The court also recognized the partial satisfaction of the victim’s civil claim for moral damages and legal assistance expenses as justified, as they were confirmed by appropriate evidence. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, refusing to satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation complaint.
The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the possibility of applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code (imposing a milder punishment), as sincere remorse and active assistance to the investigation are not sufficient grounds for a significant reduction in punishment. However, the court agreed to apply Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code, as all necessary conditions were present: sincere remorse, active assistance in solving the crime, admission of guilt, and absence of aggravating circumstances.
As a result, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal and reduced the sentence from 10 to 7 years of imprisonment, applying the rule of imposing a punishment not exceeding two-thirds of the maximum term.
Case No. 205/6026/22 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appeal by the defense of a sentence against PERSON_7, convicted of robbery under aggravating circumstances (Part 4, Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Since only the introductory and operative parts of the document are provided, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court. However, the court decided that the appellate instance’s decision contains significant violations that require a new trial. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court partially satisfying the defense’s cassation appeal.
As a result, the Supreme Court revoked the decision of the Dnipro Appellate Court and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 401/1927/20 dated 28/10/2024
Subject of the dispute – appeal of a court verdict regarding a person convicted of negligently causing serious bodily injuries during hunting.
The court was guided by the following: 1) the convict’s guilt is confirmed by a set of proper and admissible evidence, including testimony of the victim, witnesses, and expert conclusions; 2) technical errors in protocols regarding weapon caliber do not affect the admissibility of evidence; 3) the absence of an arrest on the seized weapon does not violate the convict’s rights, as he voluntarily handed it over to the investigation.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – canceled the courts’ decisions regarding compensation for material damage and appointed a new review of this issue, but left the verdict unchanged in terms of finding the person guilty.
Case No. 588/873/21 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of the dispute – appeal of the appellate court’s decision, which considered a traffic accident case without the participation of the defendant’s defense counsel, who was on sick leave.
The cassation instance court found that the appellate court unreasonably refused to grant the defense counsel’s motion to postpone the court session due to illness. Moreover, it was not proven that such a motion was submitted.
