Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the rulings of the courts of previous instances on the application of compulsory medical measures to a person who committed socially dangerous acts in a state of insanity.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, motivating this by the fact that a law came into force that decriminalized one of the episodes, namely theft, committed by the person. The Supreme Court noted that, according to the amendments to the legislation, theft is considered a criminal offense only if the value of the stolen property exceeds a certain amount, and in this case, the value of the stolen property was lower than this threshold. The court also took into account that these changes have retroactive effect, as they mitigate the responsibility of the person. The Court referred to the resolution of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated October 07, 2024, in case No. 278/1566/21. Regarding the application of compulsory medical measures, the court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, taking into account the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric examination and the social danger of the person’s actions.
3. The court of cassation amended the rulings of the courts of previous instances, closing the criminal proceedings regarding the theft, but left unchanged the decision on the application of compulsory medical measures.
