{"id":2469,"date":"2024-11-28T09:38:15","date_gmt":"2024-11-28T07:38:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2024\/11\/case-no-367-1517-22-dated-19-11-2024\/"},"modified":"2024-11-28T09:38:15","modified_gmt":"2024-11-28T07:38:15","slug":"case-no-367-1517-22-dated-19-11-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2024\/11\/case-no-367-1517-22-dated-19-11-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 367\/1517\/22 dated 19\/11\/2024"},"content":{"rendered":"

The subject of the dispute concerns the correctness of the criminal proceedings closure by the court of first instance due to the alleged expiration of pre-trial investigation terms. The court was guided by the fact that the period between the criminal proceedings closure by the prosecutor (01.03.2022) and the cancellation of this resolution by a higher-level prosecutor (27.05.2022) should not be counted towards the pre-trial investigation period. In this case, the Supreme Court directly deviated from its previous position, outlined in the resolution dated 03.04.2023, and referred to a new conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 09.09.2024. Since the indictment was submitted to the court within the correctly calculated pre-trial investigation period, there were no grounds for closing the proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancelled the decisions of previous instances, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The subject of the dispute concerns the correctness of the criminal proceedings closure by the court of first instance due to the alleged expiration of pre-trial investigation terms. The court was guided by the fact that the period between the criminal proceedings closure by the prosecutor (01.03.2022) and the cancellation of this resolution by a…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2469"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2469\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}