Case №917/1293/22 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party to the enforcement proceedings, namely the debtor, in connection with the privatization of a state enterprise.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the application for the replacement of the debtor in the enforcement proceedings, based on the fact that LLC “TIKRAITE” is the legal successor of the property rights and obligations of the State Enterprise “October Distillery” on the basis of the contract of purchase and sale of a single property complex, concluded in the process of privatization. The court noted that in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of State and Communal Property”, the buyer of a single property complex of a state enterprise becomes the legal successor of its property rights and obligations. The court also took into account that LLC “TIKRAITE” acquired ownership of the property of the State Enterprise “October Distillery” and that the enforcement proceedings were not completed at the time of filing the application for replacement of the party. The court rejected the arguments of LLC “TIKRAITE” that it is not the legal successor with regard to obligations to compensate for damages, as it believes that in this case there is universal legal succession by virtue of law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “TIKRAITE”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №346/2640/20 dated 05/06/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the accusation of PERSON_6 of providing unlawful benefit (bribe) to the head of the police sector for not sending a protocol on an administrative offense to the court.
The Supreme Court overturned the verdict and ruling of the previous instances, closing the criminal proceedings, as it established that the actions of the police officers had signs of provocation of a crime. The court noted that the police officers created a situation that induced the convicted person to commit a crime that he did not intend to commit, in particular, the invitation to the office, the lack of a clear purpose of the meeting, and the waiting position of the police officer created the impression of willingness to receive a bribe. The court also took into account the testimony of a witness, which confirmed that the police directed the convicted person to a specific office to pay the fine. The court emphasized that evidence obtained as a result of provocation is inadmissible, and the behavior of the police officer was deliberately aimed at provoking a bribe offer in order to record the crime.
The court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court and closed the criminal proceedings.
Case №211/1237/22 dated 05/13/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_8 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).
The Supreme Court upheld the r
The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, dismissing the cassation appeals of the defense attorneys and the prosecutor. The operative part of the ruling does not contain specific arguments relied upon by the court, but it can be assumed that the court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the proof of guilt of PERSON_8 and the absence of significant violations of the criminal procedural law that could lead to the annulment or modification of court decisions. The reasons for the decision will be stated in the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later.
The court ruled: to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeals of the defense attorneys and the prosecutor.
Case No. 991/1324/20 dated 05/06/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for aiding and abetting in obtaining undue advantage and legalizing (laundering) money.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, upholding the decisions of the previous instances. The court noted that a separate consideration of the case against the accomplice does not violate the right to a fair trial, even if the perpetrator of the crime was not convicted in separate proceedings. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence of other persons (applicants) was not violated, since mentioning their actions was necessary to establish the circumstances of the case regarding the convicted person. The court rejected the arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through international legal assistance, and copies of materials from the separated criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the assessment of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of previous instances, and found no grounds to doubt their conclusions. In addition, the court found the appellate court’s refusal to re-examine the evidence and the fairness of the imposed punishment to be justified.
The court left the judgment of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court and the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court unchanged.
Case No. 211/1237/22 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for illegal purchase and storage of psychotropic substances for the purpose of selling them in large quantities.
2. The court of cassation left the judgment unchanged, as it concluded that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the person guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code, based on proper and admissible evidence, in particular, witness testimonies, a protocol of the scene examination, expert opinions, and video recordings. The court took into account that the person stored a large amount of packaged methamphetamine, which exceeded the needs for personal use, as well as his behavior and other circumstances that indicated the intention to sell. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the provocation of the crime and the inadmissibility of evidence, as no facts of coercion or inducement of the person to commit the crime were established.
by law enforcement agencies. The court also agreed with the imposed punishment, taking into account the severity of the crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and the absence of mitigating circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defenders and the prosecutor.
Case No. 638/7426/24 dated May 12, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance regarding a person convicted of evading the serving of a sentence in the form of community service.
2. The court of first instance sentenced the person to a probationary supervision, adding the unserved part of the sentence under the previous judgment, converting community service into probationary supervision based on the ratio provided for in Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The appellate court agreed with this decision. The prosecutor appealed these decisions, arguing that the law does not provide for the possibility of converting community service into probationary supervision, and that the imposed punishment is too lenient. The Supreme Court disagreed with the prosecutor’s arguments, noting that the provisions of Part 4 of Article 3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the prohibition of applying the law by analogy do not apply to regulatory norms, such as Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court also indicated that the use of related equivalents provided for in Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is lawful, especially if it benefits the convicted person, and agreed that the appellate court took into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the imposition of sentences.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 712/9605/21 dated May 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the victim’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the judgment against a person convicted of violating traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim, in terms of the leniency of the imposed punishment and the amount of compensation for moral damages.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the victim’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous instance courts only in terms of the amount of compensation for moral damages, increasing it to UAH 500,000, as it considered the previously established amount insufficient to compensate for the depth of mental suffering endured by the victim as a result of the loss of his son. The court noted that the appellate court properly verified the victim’s arguments regarding the leniency of the punishment, took into account the positive characteristics of the convicted person, sincere remorse, partial compensation for damages, as well as mitigating circumstances. The court also took into account that the appellate court reasonably agreed with the decision of the local court on the possibility of imposing a sentence involving actual imprisonment, but not to the maximum extent, taking into account the possibility of social rehabilitation of the convicted person. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of compensation for moral damages must correspond to the depth of mental suffering endured.
of their suffering and increased it, considering the previous amount unfair.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the victim’s cassation appeal, increasing the amount of compensation for moral damage to UAH 500,000, and left the court decisions unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 552/3066/17 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for illegal production, storage and sale of psychotropic substances, as well as illegal purchase and storage of narcotic drugs without the purpose of sale.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of the person’s guilt in committing the crime under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code, noting that the courts properly investigated and evaluated the evidence, in particular, the testimony of witnesses, protocols of investigative actions, and expert opinions. The Court rejected the convict’s arguments about the provocation of the crime by police officers, since it was established that the pre-trial investigation bodies acted passively, without inciting the accused to commit the crime. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of the law on criminal liability by the court of appeal, namely, the simultaneous imposition of punishment under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code and exemption from criminal liability for the same crime due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Also, the Supreme Court supported the prosecutor’s arguments on the need to include the period of the person’s stay under 24-hour house arrest in the term of serving the sentence in accordance with Part 7 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the convict’s cassation appeal, partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the ruling of the court of appeal in terms of excluding the reference to the imposition of punishment under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code and including the period of stay under 24-hour house arrest in the term of serving the sentence.
Case No. 707/1048/19 dated 05/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (embezzlement of another’s property committed by abuse of office).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, citing significant violations of the criminal procedure law. The court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal did not properly verify the arguments of the defense’s appeal regarding the absence of an extract from the ERDR in the case file, which casts doubt on the legality of the start of the pre-trial investigation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal did not properly assess these arguments, which is a violation of the requirements of Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which requires the court of appeal to carefully verify the arguments of appeal complaints and provide reasoned answers to them. The Court also noted that the conclusion of the court of appeal that the court of first instance did not investigate
the lack of an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations did not affect the completeness of the judicial review, is premature. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court did not properly verify the arguments of the appeals against the verdict of the local court by the accused PERSON_6 and his defender – lawyer PERSON_14 regarding a significant violation by the court of first instance of the requirements of the criminal procedure law, the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions stated in the judgment with the actual circumstances of the criminal proceedings, and the incorrect application of the law of Ukraine on criminal liability.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and order a new hearing in the court of appeal.
**Case №292/53/24 dated 22/04/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, mitigating the punishment for the convicted person. The court took into account the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows for the imposition of a lighter punishment than that provided for in the sanction of the article, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the identity of the perpetrator. In particular, it was taken into account that the appellate court did not fully consider the circumstances that mitigate the punishment. The court also considered that the imposition of punishment should not only be a penalty for the committed act, but also aim at correcting the convicted person and preventing the commission of new crimes. In view of this, the Supreme Court decided to reduce the amount of the fine and leave the term of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles unchanged.
The court ruled to amend the appellate court’s verdict, mitigating the punishment of PERSON_7 to a fine of UAH 51,000 with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of three years.
**Case №463/9486/24 dated 08/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open appellate proceedings on a complaint against a ruling of the court of first instance refusing to open proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open appellate proceedings, considering that the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to open proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances is not subject to review. The Supreme Court emphasized that such a conclusion contradicts the provisions of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of April 10, 2024, and the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of February 24, 2025. The court also pointed out that the appellate court did not take into account the general principles of criminal proceedings, in particular, the rule of law, legality, and ensuring the right to appeal procedural decisions. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court should have applied the general principles of criminal proceedings if the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine do not regulate or ambiguously regulate the issue.
of the criminal proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 607/11229/23 dated May 15, 2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of two individuals for crimes related to the illegal trafficking of narcotic substances.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the prosecutor, overturning the appellate court’s ruling regarding PERSON_8 and ordering a new appellate review of his case. The decision is motivated by the need for a thorough review of the arguments of the appeal and ensuring the completeness of the judicial review. The court took into account the arguments of the cassation appeals regarding possible violations of substantive and procedural law committed by the courts of previous instances. In particular, it concerns the need to verify the validity of the qualification of PERSON_8’s actions and the assessment of the evidence provided by the parties. The court also considered the public danger of the crimes with which PERSON_8 is charged and the risks associated with his being at large during the new appellate review. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided to impose a preventive measure on PERSON_8 in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.
The court reversed the appellate court’s ruling regarding PERSON_8 and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance, choosing a preventive measure for him in the form of detention.
Case No. 242/127/21 dated May 5, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for theft and drug possession, where the prosecutor requests the exclusion from the judgment of episodes that fall under an administrative offense due to changes in legislation.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, guided by the following:
* Amendments to Article 51 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine by Law No. 3886-IX, which increased the threshold of the value of stolen property for the onset of criminal liability, have retroactive effect.
* The value of the property stolen by the convicted person in certain episodes did not exceed the amount established by law for criminal liability at the time the crimes were committed, therefore these episodes are subject to reclassification as an administrative offense.
* The criminal proceedings in the part of these episodes are subject to closure on the basis of clause 1-2 of part 2 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the courts established the commission of an act, the criminal illegality of which was established by a law that has lost its force.
* The statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability for the crime under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has expired, therefore the convicted person should be released from serving the sentence on the basis of clause 2 of part 1 of Article 49, part 5 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
* The sentence in the form of arrest under Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was replaced with probationary supervision, since at the time of the casein the appellate court, punishment in the form of arrest was no longer provided for by the sanction of the article.
3. The Supreme Court changed the court decisions, closed the criminal proceedings in the part of individual episodes, released the convicted person from punishment for drug possession due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and replaced the punishment in the form of arrest with probationary supervision.
Case No. 292/53/24 dated April 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment imposed on a person convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, which resulted in moderate bodily injury to the victim.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, who requested to mitigate the punishment for the convicted person, taking into account his state of health (disability), difficult financial situation, the position of the victim who had no claims, and other mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court noted that punishment should not only be a penalty but also a means of correction and prevention of new crimes. The court took into account that the appellate court, increasing the amount of the fine to UAH 170,000, did not fully take into account the property status of the convicted person, who, due to disability, has limited opportunities for work and is in a difficult financial situation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of the fine must be commensurate with the property status of the guilty person, otherwise, the punishment will be unfair. Considering all the circumstances, the Supreme Court found it reasonable to partially grant the cassation appeal and reduce the amount of the fine.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, changed the verdict of the appellate court, and reduced the amount of the fine for the convicted person to UAH 51,000, leaving in force the deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of three years.
Case No. 456/769/22 dated May 8, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint against the local court’s ruling regarding comments on the court hearing record.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal because, according to Articles 307, 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to satisfy the complaint against the local court’s ruling regarding comments on the court hearing record is not subject to appeal. The appellate court rightfully refused to open appellate proceedings, as the local court’s ruling is not included in the list of those that can be appealed separately. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to cassation appeal is limited and is exercised only in cases provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the possibility of a separate appeal against a court decision leaving comments on the court hearing record without satisfaction is not provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the erroneous decision of the appellate court regarding the appeal against the investigating judge’s ruling do not affect the correctness of the conclusion.
of the court, since an appeal against such a ruling is not provided for by the CPC of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 444/3061/18 dated 05/14/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, resulting in the death of the victim or serious bodily injury).
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous courts, dismissing the defenders’ cassation appeals. The court likely agreed with the conclusions of the previous judicial instances regarding the proof of the guilt of PERSON_9 in committing the criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Also, the court of cassation instance did not find significant violations of the criminal procedural law that would cast doubt on the legality and validity of the court decisions. Possibly, the defenders’ cassation appeals concerned issues of evidence assessment, qualification of the defendant’s actions, or the measure of punishment, but the court did not take these arguments into account. Considering that the full text of the resolution will be announced later, a more detailed analysis of the court’s motives is currently impossible.
The court ruled: to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_9 unchanged, and to dismiss the defenders’ cassation appeals.
Case No. 991/2568/25 dated 05/15/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court on securing the claim by seizing assets in the case of recognizing unjustified assets and their recovery to the state revenue.
The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on securing the claim, i.e., on the seizure of assets. The court did not provide any arguments that it was guided by when making the decision, as it announced only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution, citing the need for a significant amount of time to draw up the full text of the decision. The full text of the resolution will be drawn up within five days. Thus, it is currently impossible to establish the motives of the court of appeal.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court of March 25, 2025.
Case No. 582/1512/19 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Article 286, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules, resulting in serious bodily injuries) and the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld the judgment.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, taking into account several important factors: the first committed crime through negligence, positive characteristics of PERSON_6 at the place of work and residence, his advanced age and severe oncological disease.
stage IV cancer. The court also took into account that PERSON_6 apologized to the victim and compensated for the moral damage caused, and the victim himself does not desire a real punishment for the convict. The court emphasized that the punishment must be proportional to the state’s interference with human rights, and the gravity of the crime is not the only determining factor. Also, the court took into account that at the time of the crime, PERSON_6 was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which allows the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. The court amended the verdict and ruling, releasing PERSON_6 from serving the main sentence in the form of imprisonment with probation for 3 years, imposing on him the obligations provided for in Art. 76 part 1 paragraphs 1, 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 174/333/24 dated 05/14/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_7 of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Art. 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed on a large scale or under martial law or a state of emergency).
The Supreme Court does not provide specific arguments that it relied on when making the decision, as only the operative part of the resolution has been announced. However, considering that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was partially granted, and the appellate court’s ruling was overturned with the assignment of a new trial in the court of appeal, it can be assumed that the Supreme Court found certain violations of procedural law or incomplete investigation of the case circumstances by the appellate court, which could have affected the legality and validity of its decision. It is possible that the prosecutor in the cassation appeal pointed to the inconsistency of the appellate court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case, incorrect application of substantive law, or significant violations of the criminal procedure law, which became the basis for overturning the ruling. More specific conclusions can be drawn after reviewing the full text of the resolution.
The Supreme Court ruled to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal in part, to overturn the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and to assign a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 759/22250/23 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of the victim).
2. The operative part of the decision does not state the arguments of the court.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the representative of the victim.
Case No. 759/22250/23 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for violation of traffic safety rules.
regarding a traffic accident that resulted in the victim’s death (Part 2, Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they adhered to the general principles of sentencing, taking into account the severity of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, the identity of the perpetrator, mitigating circumstances, and the absence of aggravating circumstances. The court noted that the imposed sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years, with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of 3 years, is the minimum according to the sanction of Part 2, Article 286 of the Criminal Code, fair, and necessary for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes. The court also took into account that compensation for damages to the victim and apologies were made more than a year after the traffic accident, and that the position of the injured party regarding sentencing is not decisive, given the public danger of the crime. The defense counsel’s arguments regarding the participation of a prosecutor not included in the group of prosecutors were refuted by the provided decision on the change of the group of prosecutors.
3. The court ruled to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the representative of the victim – dismissed.
Case No. 759/19162/19 dated 05/13/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s judgment regarding a person convicted under Part 2, Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery).
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment, dismissing the defense counsel’s cassation appeal. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court of cassation instance from the provided operative part. However, upholding the judgment indicates that the court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the proof of the person’s guilt in committing robbery, the correctness of the classification of actions, and the fairness of the imposed sentence. It is possible that the cassation appeal contained arguments regarding violations of the norms of procedural law or the incorrect application of the law on criminal liability, but the court found no grounds to satisfy them. A full text of the ruling is needed for a more detailed analysis.
The court ruled: to leave the judgment of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of August 2, 2024, regarding PERSON_6 unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of defense counsel PERSON_7.
Case No. 202/13244/23 dated 05/14/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s judgment regarding a person convicted of illegal purchase and storage of narcotic substances without the purpose of distribution (Part 3, Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, motivating this by the need for a thorough verification of the arguments of the appellate appeal and the study of all the circumstances of the case. The court of cassation instance pointed out that the appellate court did not fully take into account the defense’s arguments regarding the possibility of provocation of the crime by law enforcement agencies, and also did not properly assess the evidence presented by the party.
