Case No. 202/4400/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – a prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision to mitigate the punishment for a person convicted of illegal drug trafficking. The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a milder punishment), as it did not substantiate how the circumstances it referred to (sincere repentance, positive characteristics, sports achievements, etc.) significantly reduce the degree of severity of the committed crime. The court pointed out that these circumstances can only be grounds for imposing the minimum punishment within the sanction of the article, but not for going beyond its limits. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review, indicating that the punishment applied under Article 69 of the Criminal Code is too lenient and does not correspond to the severity of the committed crime.
Case No. 175/4683/18 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in a criminal case charging a person with violating traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code). The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the resolution, as the full text of the decision will be announced later. However, from the text, it is clear that the Supreme Court found no grounds for revoking or changing the challenged court decisions of lower instances. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instances unchanged and dismissed the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 202/2174/23 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against a verdict concerning a person convicted under Article 114-2, Part 3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized dissemination of information about the movement of weapons, armaments, and ammunition into Ukraine, movement, displacement, or deployment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine). Since only the operative part of the document is provided, the specific arguments of the court are not disclosed. However, the court reviewed the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal in full and found no grounds for its satisfaction. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court and recognized them as lawful and substantiated. The Supreme Court left the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court unchanged.
Case No. 709/407/22 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against a verdict concerning two persons convicted of illegal fishing using prohibited fishing gear. The court was guided by the fact that the convicts’ guilt was fully proven by witness testimonies, crime scene examination protocols, and expert conclusions. The defense’s version that the defendants were fishing with spinning rods was refuted, as no spinning rods were found at the crime scene. The court also noted that the totality of evidence excludes any other reasonable explanation of the event other than the commission of a criminal offense by these individuals. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s decision unchanged and refused to satisfy the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 233/2440/20 dated 29/10/2024
The court recognized the correct qualification of the convicted person’s actions under paragraph 6, part 2 of Article 115 and part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code, as direct intent to murder the victim with the purpose of seizing her property was proven. The court took into account the nature of the defendant’s actions, their sequence and intensity, as well as the fact that the intent to commit crimes arose in advance. Evidence, including the investigative experiment protocol, was recognized as admissible.
Case No. 587/288/18 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against a court verdict regarding illegal weapons possession and illegal hunting, where the convicted person requested to be releasedCase No. 272/639/19 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appealing a court verdict regarding conviction for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm to the victim by punching her in the face.
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the accused, being physically stronger than the female victim, inflicted a strong blow to her face, being aware of the possibility of her falling and sustaining serious injuries; 2) as a result of the blow, the victim fell and hit her head on stones, receiving grievous bodily harm in the form of a skull fracture and brain injuries; 3) although the accused did not directly desire such consequences, he consciously assumed them, which indicates an intentional form of guilt.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court, which sentenced the accused to 5 years of imprisonment for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.
Case No. 756/847/17 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appealing the first instance court verdict and appellate ruling regarding conviction for organizing a premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances.
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the need to review the imposed punishment, taking into account the rules of crime combination and crediting the pre-trial detention period. An important aspect was the application of the principle of absorption of a less severe punishment by a more severe one in the presence of a previous verdict. The court also took into account the need to confiscate the convict’s property, but with the exclusion of housing from the list of property subject to confiscation.
Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense’s cassation appeals, modifying the previous court decisions and imposing a final punishment of 15 years of imprisonment with property confiscation, except for housing.
Case No. 203/3699/19 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appealing the appellate court verdict regarding the imposition of actual imprisonment for 3 years for stealing communication cables.
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the convict had previously been repeatedly convicted of property crimes and had an outstanding criminal record. Although the court took into account sincere remorse as a mitigating circumstance, the presence of recidivism and the severity of the crime became the basis for imposing actual punishment. The appellate court reasonably canceled the first instance court’s decision on release from serving punishment with probation.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s verdict and denied satisfaction of the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 726/464/19 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appealing the court verdict regarding conviction for illegal drug trafficking committed as part of an organized group.
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the existence of an organized group of four persons with a stable composition and clear division of roles was proven; 2) it was confirmed that the convict was an active member of this group and participated in illegal drug trafficking; 3) all qualifying characteristics of the crime are present – repetition, especially large amount of drugs, and commission of the crime as part of an organized group.
The Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, only partially modifying the wording regarding the classification of cannabis and cannabis resin, which are no longer considered particularly dangerous narcotic substances.
Case No. 464/7111/14-k dated 14/11/2024
Subject of dispute – the convict’s request for clarification of the Supreme Court’s resolution dated January 22, 2020. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the ruling, noting only that the full text of the decision would be announced later, as its preparation requires significant time. The court was guided by the provisions of Articles 376, 380, and 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court denied the convict’s request for clarification of the resolution dated January 22, 2020.
Case No. 161/4116/24 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing against the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal due to missed appeal deadline. The court was guided by the fact that the appellant filed the first appeal on time (within 7 days), albeit with a procedural violation – directly to the appellate court instead of the local court. After receiving a notification about the incorrect filing, he immediately submitted the complaint again through the local court the same day. The Supreme Court considers that refusing to restore the appeal deadline in such a situation is a manifestation of excessive formalism and unjustifiably restricts the person’s right to appellate review of the case. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new review.
Case No. 199/6828/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Review by the Supreme Court of lower instance court verdicts regarding the conviction of a person for state treason and illegal handling of weapons. Main arguments of the court: 1) It is proven that the accused deliberately transmitted information about the location of military facilities and equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to a representative of Russian special services via messenger. 2) Collected evidence (search protocols, phone expertise, correspondence) is admissible and reliable. 3) The accused’s actions were correctly qualified as state treason, as he consciously provided assistance to a representative of a foreign state in conducting subversive activities against Ukraine. Court decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdicts of lower instance courts, which sentenced the person to 15 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property for state treason and illegal handling of weapons.
Case No. 136/53/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing against the appellate court’s decision in a criminal case regarding violation of traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is clear that a cassation appeal by the defender against the ruling of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court dated December 6, 2023, regarding the accused PERSON_7 was being considered. The Supreme Court decided to leave the Vinnytsia Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged and the defender’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 444/856/23 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing by the prosecutor against the appellate court’s decision in a case involving a citizen of the Russian Federation accused of encroaching on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, inciting national hostility, and justifying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. The court did not provide detailed reasoning in the operative part of the decision, noting that the full text of the resolution would be prepared later due to the significant amount of work. However, the fact of partial satisfaction of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal indicates that the court found significant violations in the appellate instance’s decision that require a new review of the case. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the ruling of the Lviv Appellate CoSupreme Court Decisions Summary
Case No. 202/4400/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding an accused person in illegal drug trafficking.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days. The court noted significant violations in the appellate court’s case review that require a new examination.
Case No. 199/6828/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging first and appellate instance court verdicts regarding a person’s conviction for state treason and illegal weapons handling.
The Supreme Court found no grounds to revoke or modify previous court decisions. The court maintained the verdicts of the first and appellate instances and rejected the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 359/13106/21 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s appeal against an acquittal for violating international goods transfer procedures subject to state export control.
The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, ultimately confirming the accused’s acquittal.
Case No. 536/1359/23 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a court verdict regarding a serviceman who unauthorized left a military unit during martial law.
The Supreme Court maintained the first and appellate instance verdicts and rejected the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, noting that procedural requirements were observed during the trial.
Case No. 136/53/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a court verdict regarding a driver who caused a traffic accident with severe bodily injuries by violating traffic rules when exiting a secondary road.
The Supreme Court maintained the appellate court’s decision, finding the driver’s guilt fully proven by evidence, including witness testimonies, accident scene protocols, and technical expertise.Guilty of violating traffic safety rules with a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment with a probation period of 1 year.
Case No. 263/13128/18 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the decision of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of participation in a terrorist organization, illegal handling of weapons, and a terrorist act. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, stating only that the full text of the ruling would be announced later. However, the decision shows that significant violations were identified that require a repeated review of the case in the appellate instance. At the same time, the court considered it necessary to keep the accused in custody during the new appellate review.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, canceled the appellate court’s decision, and appointed a new case review, simultaneously extending the detention of the accused for 60 days.
Case No. 643/9869/20 dated 04/11/2024
The court established that the driver PERSON_6 legally parked the car at the right edge of the roadway, complying with all traffic rules requirements for vehicle parking. The traffic accident occurred solely due to the fault of another driver (PERSON_7), who was moving at night at almost twice the speed and did not take into account the road conditions. Importantly, the court distinguished between the concepts of ‘stopping’ and ‘parking’ of a vehicle, which have different requirements under traffic rules.
Case No. 750/9588/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of dispute – legality of returning a car to its owner, which was used as a tool for a crime involving intentional infliction of serious bodily harm.
The cassation instance court pointed out that the appellate court did not properly verify the possibility of applying special confiscation of the car. In particular, it was not investigated whether the owner truly has a real interest in returning the property, considering that he has been abroad for a long time and provided the convicted person with a power of attorney to dispose of the car. The court also emphasized that when resolving the issue of special confiscation, the terms ‘owner’ and ‘legal possessor’ are used as alternatives, and the law does not give preference to the rights of the owner over the legal possessor.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to carefully check the grounds for applying special confiscation of the car.
Case No. 175/4683/18 dated 12/11/2024
The court established that the driver PERSON_6, driving a Hyundai Santa Fe, violated traffic rules while attempting to turn around, which led to a collision with a Skoda Octavia, which after the impact drove onto the oncoming lane and collided with a motorcycle. The guilt of PERSON_6 is confirmed by witness testimonies, expert conclusions, and other appropriate evidence. At the same time, the court established that the drivers of the Skoda and the motorcycle did not have a technical possibility to avoid the traffic accident, whereas PERSON_6 could have prevented the accident.
Case No. 450/2757/22 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court in a criminal case regarding a person accused of illegal drug trafficking.
The court did not provide arguments for its decision, as this is only the operative part of the ruling. In such a case, the court only announces its decision, and the full text with motivation will be prepared later. This is allowed by procedural law when the preparation of the full text of the decision requires significant time.
The Supreme Court decided to fully satisfy the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, partially satisfy the defense counsel’s appeal, cancel the decisions of previous instances, and send the case for a new review to the first instance court.
