Here is the translation of the legal texts:
Case No. 1309/3314/12 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of Consideration – Defense Counsel’s Motion for Participation in Cassation Review of Criminal Case via Video Conference. The Court was guided by Article 85-3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960, which provides for the possibility of conducting procedural actions via video conference in case of impossibility of personal appearance of process participants in court at the case venue. The Court took into account that such form of participation is admissible and will ensure the implementation of the defense counsel’s procedural rights. The Court granted the defense counsel’s motion and ruled to conduct the court hearing via video conference between the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court and the Yavoriv District Court of Lviv Region.
Case No. 202/1843/15-k dated 18/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Convict’s Appeal of Court Verdict Sentencing Him to Life Imprisonment for Participation in a Criminal Organization and Committing Serious Crimes. The Court was guided by the fact that the cassation complaint was filed after the expiration of the 3-month appeal period established by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960. Although the convict requested restoration of the appeal period, such a matter is not within the competence of the cassation court – it must be resolved by the court that considered the case. The convict did not provide a decision on restoration of the appeal period. The Supreme Court found the cassation complaint non-reviewable due to missed appeal period and absence of a decision on its restoration.
Case No. 991/1870/22 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Embezzlement of State Enterprise Funds in Especially Large Amounts by a Group of Persons through Forgery of Official Documents. The Court established that the accused organized a scheme of funds theft through fictitious performance acts under agency agreements. The main evidence included forged documents and witness testimonies. The Court considered the role of each member of the criminal group – from organizers to accomplices. Based on the case review, the court found 7 persons guilty of embezzling over 140 thousand euros and sentenced them to imprisonment from 7 to 8 years with property confiscation and prohibition from holding certain positions. One defendant was acquitted due to lack of proof of guilt.
Case No. 488/3009/23 dated 22/10/2024
Subject of Dispute: Cassation Review of Verdict against a Person Convicted of Threat of Murder and Theft during Martial Law. Main Court Arguments: The Court drew attention to legislative changes introduced by Law No. 3886-IX dated 18.07.2024, which decriminalized petty theft of property worth less than 2 non-taxable minimum income levels. Since the value of stolen property in both episodes was less than the established statutory subsistence minimum as of January 1, 2023, these actions are no longer criminally punishable. The Court referred to the principle of retroactive effect of law in time, enshrined in Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 5 of the Criminal Code. Court Decision: The Supreme Court closed criminal proceedings under the theft article (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code) and upheld the punishment only for threat of murder in the form of restriction of freedom for 2 years.Case No. 24 dated 14/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 6-month period for appealing the HQCJ decision, which began from the moment he learned about this decision in 2019. The change in judicial practice by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in 2024 is not a valid reason for reinstating the missed deadline, as this is merely a new interpretation of existing legal norms, not a new legal basis for the claim. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had previously appealed this same HQCJ decision, meaning he was aware of the violation of his rights.
Case No. 344/8350/22 dated 07/11/2024
When making the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the driver PERSON_6, while making a left turn, did not ensure the safety of the maneuver and caused a collision with a motorcycle; 2) the violation of traffic rules by driver PERSON_6 is directly linked to the occurrence of serious consequences; 3) possible violations by the motorcyclist are not decisive for the occurrence of the accident, as PERSON_6 had the technical ability to avoid a collision.
Case No. 990/241/24 dated 14/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 6-month period for appealing the decree, which begins from the day of its official publication. The court considered that the plaintiff had a real opportunity to learn about the decree from the moment of its publication and disclosure in official publications. The plaintiff’s arguments that as a foreigner he is not obligated to track Ukrainian decisions were rejected, as ignorance of the law does not exempt one from its application.
Case No. 588/93/20 dated 07/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the correctness of the application by the first and appellate instance courts of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding sentencing for a person who committed a new crime before the previous verdict was issued. The cassation instance court found that the lower courts incorrectly applied criminal law norms when they combined punishments for two verdicts and released the person from serving both sentences with probation. The Supreme Court emphasized that when a person is to serve a real punishment under the first verdict, and is released from serving punishment with probation under the new verdict – such verdicts must be executed separately, without applying the rules of cumulation. The court also referred to the conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Panel dated April 1, 2024, where a similar legal position was formulated. As a result of the review, the Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 202/1843/15-k dated 18/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Cassation complaint by the convicted person against the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding his conviction for participation in a criminal organization and other serious crimes.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court noted that the cassation complaint was filed after the expiration of the three-month period for cassation appeal. Although the convicted person raised the issue of reinstating the missed deadline, such a matter is not within the competence of the cassation court – it must be resolved by the court that considered the case. The convicted person can file a cassation complaint only after the appeal deadline has been reinstated by the relevant court.The cassation complaint has been deemed non-reviewable due to missing the cassation appeal deadline.
[Case No. 1-123/2011 dated 18/11/2024]
Subject of dispute – appealing the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding sentencing a person to life imprisonment for intentional murder. The court reviewed the convict’s cassation complaint, in which he points out significant violations of criminal procedural law and incorrect application of criminal law by lower instance courts. The judge established that the complaint meets all formal legal requirements – filed by the proper person and within the prescribed time. To fully and objectively review the complaint, it is necessary to examine the criminal case materials. The court decided to request the criminal case materials from the Druzhkivka City Court of Donetsk Region to verify the arguments of the cassation complaint.
[Case No. 990SCGC/11/24 dated 14/11/2024]
Subject of dispute – appealing the High Council of Justice’s decision to bring the judge of the Saksahansky District Court of Kryvyi Rih to disciplinary responsibility. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the decision (only introductory and operative parts), it is impossible to determine the arguments the court was guided by when making the decision, as the motivational part of the ruling is absent. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court satisfied the judge’s complaint, canceled the High Council of Justice’s decision, and ordered to collect court fees of 1,211.20 UAH in favor of the complainant.
[Case No. 280/8197/23 dated 14/11/2024]
Subject of dispute – non-payment of additional compensation of 100,000 UAH to a serviceman for direct participation in combat operations during martial law. The appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings on the military unit’s complaint, as it considered the reasons for missing the appeal deadline as invalid. The court noted that the mere fact of martial law introduction, without proper substantiation of specific obstacles to filing an appeal and their documentary confirmation, cannot be grounds for reinstating the missed deadline. The court also took into account that the military unit had already filed two appeals that were returned due to non-elimination of deficiencies, which indicates an unfair use of procedural rights. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to open appellate proceedings, recognizing it as lawful and justified.
[Case No. 444/856/23 dated 13/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court unjustifiably applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exemption from serving punishment with probation), without providing a proper assessment of the social danger of the committed acts. The Supreme Court also pointed out the erroneousness of the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the presence of sincere remorse, as the accused only partially admitted guilt and claimed the absence of intent.
[Case No. 639/673/24 dated 12/11/2024]
The court rejected the defense’s arguments about violation of the right to defense and incorrect application of simplified proceedings, as the accused voluntarily, in the presence of a defense counsel, gave consent to such case consideration and admitted his guilt.The Court of Appeal correctly modified the punishment from arrest to a fine, taking into account changes in criminal legislation. The court also correctly applied the rules for sentencing under a set of verdicts.
Case No. 1-144 dated 30/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) established a violation of Article 3 of the Convention regarding cruel treatment of the convicted person during the pre-trial investigation, but did not recognize the decisions of national courts as contrary to the Convention in substance. The ECHR also did not establish that procedural violations cast doubt on the result of the trial. Monetary compensation was determined as fair satisfaction for the violation.
Case No. 554/5826/22 dated 12/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person committed especially serious crimes against life, characterized by increased public danger – brutally killed two persons, including his elderly mother, while in a state of drug intoxication. The court also took into account that the convicted person leads an immoral lifestyle, is unemployed, and suffers from alcohol dependence. Although mitigating circumstances were considered (sincere repentance, absence of previous convictions), the court concluded that the correction of the person is impossible when imposing a term punishment.
Case No. 1309/3314/12 dated 18/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the convicted person’s request to participate in the cassation review of the case via video conference. The court was guided by Article 85-3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960, which provides for the possibility of conducting procedural actions via video conference in case of impossibility of personal appearance of participants in court. Considering that the convicted person is in a penal institution, conducting a video conference is a reasonable way to ensure his participation in the court session. The court granted the convicted person’s motion and ordered to conduct a court session via video conference between the Supreme Court and Drohobych Correctional Colony.
Case No. 404/4513/24 dated 18/11/2024
The subject of consideration is the issue of appointing a lawyer to provide free legal aid to the applicant PERSON_5. The court was guided by the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Free Legal Aid”, which guarantees the right to free legal assistance. Considering the need to ensure the right to defense when considering a motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another, the court found it necessary to appoint a lawyer. The Supreme Court ordered the Director of the Northern Interregional Center for Providing Free Legal Aid to appoint a lawyer for PERSON_5 and ensure his participation in the consideration of the relevant motion.
Case No. 284/937/21 dated 13/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is appealing against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for violating traffic safety rules and leaving a person in danger. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of important evidence and arguments of the defense, in particular regarding: the inconsistency of the time of the crime with the actual circumstances of the case; the admissibility of evidence obtained during the inspectionTranslation:
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 500/5585/23 dated 14/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that CMU Resolution No. 335 dated 20.03.2022 provided for pricing goods for defense needs during martial law exclusively based on cost calculation, without including profit. Although the legislation was later amended to allow profit inclusion, at the time of contract signing, there was a prohibition. The court also rejected the argument that the supplier was not an ‘executor’ within the meaning of the Defense Procurement Law.
Case No. 640/14211/19 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the State Geocadaster’s refusal to grant permission for developing a land management project for land allocation for personal farming.
The cassation instance court established that previous courts made significant violations: 1) did not consider that from 27.05.2021, powers regarding the disputed land plot transferred from the State Geocadaster to the territorial community; 2) did not involve the proper defendant (territorial community); 3) did not take into account the prohibition on free transfer of state and communal lands to private ownership during martial law.
The Supreme Court canceled previous courts’ decisions and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court to eliminate violations and adopt a lawful decision.
Case No. 120/4858/23 dated 14/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the military unit No. 1219 certificate dated 05.08.2022, issued based on a combat order, is a proper evidence of the plaintiff’s participation in combat actions. The non-receipt of lists in the form of Appendix 2 to Order No. 164-AG cannot be grounds for non-payment of compensation, as this is merely a payment procedure element, not a basis for establishing the right to it.
Case No. 182/2214/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging a court verdict sentencing a person for intentional murder to 9 years of imprisonment.
The court in its decision was guided by: 1) the accused inflicted four blows with an axe to the victim’s head and two kicks to the chest, resulting in death; 2) it was not proven that the crime was committed in a state of intense emotional distress, as the accused deliberately went for the axe and returned to strike blows; 3) the assigned punishment (9 years of imprisonment) is fair and corresponds to the crime’s severity.
The Supreme Court upheld the first and appellate instance verdicts, rejecting the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 459/863/20 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging a court verdict regarding conviction for illegal drug sales.
The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) presence of proper and admissible evidence, including operational purchase results,
