Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal against the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances on the exemption of the accused from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and the closure of the criminal proceedings.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that when exempting a person from liability under Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court is not obliged to establish the factual circumstances of the crime or prove guilt, as this contradicts the very essence of such an exemption.
* At the same time, the court emphasized that a ruling to close proceedings must contain the formulation of the charges and the legal classification, so that it is clear which specific acts are incriminated and whether the statute of limitations has indeed expired.
* **Legal Position:** The court departed from its previous position, upholding the legal stance of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (resolution dated May 5, 2026), according to which the consideration of a motion to close proceedings without proper notification of the victims and their representative is a significant violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties.
* The court established that the local court did not notify the victims about the receipt of a motion from one of the accused (PERSON_15), thereby depriving them of the right to express their position, which is mandatory under Article 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
* The appellate court mistakenly believed that the position of the victims is not decisive, and therefore ignoring their rights does not affect the legality of the decision, which the Supreme Court deemed a flawed approach.
* Consequently, the violation of the victims’ right to participate in the judicial proceedings and the lack of a clear statement of the essence of the charges in the ruling became the determining factors for the cancellation of the lower courts’ decisions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, cancelled the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances, and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
