{"id":3201,"date":"2024-12-16T09:13:42","date_gmt":"2024-12-16T07:13:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2024\/12\/case-no-947-12873-23-dated-05-12-2024\/"},"modified":"2024-12-16T09:13:42","modified_gmt":"2024-12-16T07:13:42","slug":"case-no-947-12873-23-dated-05-12-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2024\/12\/case-no-947-12873-23-dated-05-12-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 947\/12873\/23 dated 05\/12\/2024"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the dispute &#8211; appealing the appellate court&#8217;s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for stealing a cable worth 646.80 hryvnias and damaging a telecommunications network. The court was guided by the fact that after the commission of the crime, a new law came into force that decriminalized theft of property worth up to 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens (2,684 hryvnias in 2023). Since the value of the stolen property was less than this amount, the person&#8217;s actions are now classified as an administrative offense, not a criminal crime. In this case, the court took into account that the law that mitigates responsibility has a retroactive effect. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal &#8211; closed the criminal proceedings regarding the theft, but upheld the verdict for damaging the telecommunications network with a punishment of 2 years of restricted freedom.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/123678735\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the dispute &#8211; appealing the appellate court&#8217;s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for stealing a cable worth 646.80 hryvnias and damaging a telecommunications network. The court was guided by the fact that after the commission of the crime, a new law came into force that decriminalized theft of property worth up&hellip;<\/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-3201","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\/3201","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=3201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}