Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 344\/8185\/19:<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the conviction of a patrol police inspector for exceeding official authority (Part 2 of Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), accompanied by the unlawful use of physical force against a citizen, as well as the issue of the proper defendant in a civil lawsuit for damages.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation instance confirmed the validity of the lower courts’ conclusions regarding the police officer’s guilt, as the case materials, including body-worn camera footage, proved the absence of legal grounds for conducting a superficial check and applying physical force (an arm lock) to the victim. The court emphasized that the police officer had no grounds for such actions, and his versions of events were refuted by witness testimony and case materials. An important aspect was the confirmation of the admissibility of forensic medical examination reports, which clearly established a causal link between the actions of the convicted person and the moderate bodily injuries sustained by the victim. At the same time, the court departed from previous practice regarding the determination of the proper defendant in a civil lawsuit, guided by the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The court noted that damages caused by an official while performing their duties must be compensated by the state, rather than directly by the convicted person, which requires the lawsuit to be heard within the framework of civil proceedings.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict in the part finding the person guilty of committing a criminal offense, but set aside the court decisions in the part concerning the resolution of the civil lawsuit, remanding the case for a new trial within the framework of civil proceedings.<\/p>\n