Below is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal against the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding a violation of traffic safety rules that caused the death of a victim (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the consideration of the appeal, failing to provide reasoned responses to key arguments of the defense concerning the admissibility of evidence and the mechanics of the traffic accident.
* The Court pointed out the necessity of establishing the source of origin of the traffic accident video recording, as the appellate court’s reference to previous Supreme Court practice was incorrect due to differences in the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained.
* The panel of judges drew attention to the inconsistency in the findings of various expert examinations in the case, which assessed the actions of both drivers and the causal link between their traffic violations and the consequences of the accident differently.
* The Court stressed that in order to hold a person liable under Article 286 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to clearly establish whose actions created the dangerous situation, as liability is excluded if the violation was forced due to the actions of another road user.
* The appellate court failed to properly analyze witness testimonies regarding the speed of the victim’s vehicle and the convicted person’s assertion that his vehicle was stationary at the moment of the collision.
* The Supreme Court stated that the appellate court, acting as a “court of fact,” failed to fulfill its duty to conduct a full examination of the evidence, which constitutes a significant violation of criminal procedural law.
* **Legal Position:** The Court deviated from its previous position, noting that the fact of one of the drivers’ death does not release the court from the duty to examine in detail the causal link between the traffic violations of both participants of the accident and the consequences of the incident.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
