Case No. 991/4005/22 dated 03/01/2025
Main arguments of the court: The court established that PERSON_12 incited the provision of an illegal benefit to the Prosecutor General by voicing the mechanism and amount (100,000 US dollars) for resolving the issue of property return and criminal case closure. PERSON_11, being the head of a department in the Office of the Prosecutor General, facilitated the provision of an illegal benefit through advice, instructions, and coordination of actions with other persons. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about crime provocation, as the initiative originated from the accused themselves, and law enforcement agencies merely documented their unlawful actions.
Case No. 552/907/21 dated 17/12/2024
The court established that the manager PERSON_6, having received payment from the buyer to his personal account, was supposed to transfer these funds to the enterprise or deposit them into the cash register according to the contract. Instead, he appropriated these funds, partially spent them, and ignored the management’s demand to return the money. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about an erroneous payment and the existence of civil-law relations, as evidence confirmed that the manager deliberately provided the details of his account for payment and only after receiving the funds allowed the press to be shipped.
Case No. 505/1346/21 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding a driver who violated traffic rules and caused moderate bodily injuries to a pedestrian. The court was guided by the fact that at the time of consideration in the appellate instance (01.02.2024), more than 3 years had passed since the commission of the criminal offense (02.09.2020), which is the statute of limitations for criminal liability under Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The appellate court made a significant violation by not explaining to the accused his right to be released from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and not closing the proceedings. The Supreme Court canceled the previous court decisions and released the accused from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, closing the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 439/76/19 dated 10/12/2024
The court established that the driver PERSON_9, while overtaking in a prohibited place, drove onto the oncoming lane and collided with a vehicle driven by PERSON_8, who was exiting a secondary road without giving way to traffic. The guilt of both drivers is confirmed by witness testimonies and expert conclusions, which established traffic rule violations by both traffic accident participants.
Case No. 229/2438/23 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s verdict on releasing a person who provided premises for drug use from serving the sentence. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) although the crime has a negative impact on society, it is a single case of drug smoking; 2) the accused fully admitted guilt, sincerely repented and condemned his behavior; 3) actual imprisonment in this case would be a disproportionate punishment. At the same time, the court took into account the accused’s previous convictions and increased the probation period to the maximum – 3 years. The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the appellate court’s decision to release the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation.
Case No. 333/1017/23 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute: appealing the court verdict regarding a serviceman who, while on duty in a state of alcoholic intoxication, committed intentional murder of his partner. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the nature of the accused’s actions (removing the rifle from safety, chambering a round, deliberately pressing the trigger) indicates an intentional murder; 2) ballistic expertise confirmed that the fatal shot was made from the accused’s rifle; 3) the accused’s testimony about shooting upwards is refuted by expert conclusions regarding the direction of the wound canal in the victim’s body. The Supreme Court left unchanged the first instance verdict, which sentenced the accused to 8 years of imprisonment for intentional murder and ordered him to pay 523,000 hryvnias in compensation to the deceased’s mother.
Case No. 404/5456/17 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the accused PERSON_7 held the position of deputy head of the department with the assignment of head of department, which belongs to category ‘B’ of public service; 2) covert investigative actions recorded a conversation about passport issuance conditions; 3) during detention, specially marked money was found in the accused’s car, traces of which were also found on his hands and clothing.
Case No. 639/819/23 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding the conviction of a serviceman for unauthorized leaving of a military unit during martial law. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person did not return to the military unit after being granted a short-term leave, and the version about the impossibility of return due to coercion by third parties was not confirmed by any evidence. The court also took into account that the crime was committed during the period of martial law, is serious, and the convicted person did not recognize the wrongfulness of his behavior during the trial. At the same time, the court appointed the minimum punishment provided by the sanction of the article, taking into account the positive characteristics of the convicted person. The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance court and appellate court on sentencing to 5 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 547/839/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the following main arguments: 1) The guilt of the accused is confirmed by witness testimonies, video recordings from police body cameras, crime scene inspection protocols, and data on the accused’s phone geolocation; 2) The amount of damage was 1,286,285 hryvnias due to catching a large number of fish (206 pieces of various species) using prohibited fishing tools; 3) All procedural actions regarding vehicle inspection and evidence seizure were carried out legally, respecting the rights of the accused.
Case No. 199/3188/23 dated 06/01/2025
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the lawyer adhered to the procedural terms for filing an application for expense reimbursement and provided all necessary supporting documents. However, the court took into account the prosecutor’s objections regarding the disproportionality of the claimed amount to the case complexity and volume of services provided. The court also noted that the consideration took place in written proceedings, and the lawyer’s work consisted only of drafting procedural documents.
Case No. 607/11413/20 dated 06/01/2025
Subject of dispute: cancellation of state registration of property ownership for an apartment that was transferred as collateral for a foreign currency loan. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) at the time of ownership registration for PE “Budsoiuz-Tekhnika”, a moratorium was in effect on property foreclosure for foreign currency loans; 2) the disputed apartment was used as a permanent residence, and its area did not exceed 140 sq.m.; 3) a previous court decision established a prohibition on forced foreclosure of this apartment during the moratorium period. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances on canceling the state registration of ownership rights for PE “Budsoiuz-Tekhnika” for the disputed apartment.
Case No. 682/459/23 dated 03/01/2025
The court established that the land lease agreement is not concluded, as the owner’s signature was forged, and the enterprise did not prove the fact of the owner receiving lease payment or reaching an agreement on essential contract terms. The lack of legal grounds for land use and failure to comply with the owner’s demand for its return provided grounds for satisfying the claim to remove obstacles in property use by returning the land plot.
Case No. 611/245/21 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the employer (Agricultural Firm “Barvinkivska” LLC) issued an order for hiring an employee instead of an order for reinstatement, as provided by the court decision. The order for hiring and the order for reinstatement have different legal significance and consequences. The employer cannot substitute the operative part of the court decision and arbitrarily interpret the court’s decision.
