{"id":6090,"date":"2025-03-01T09:26:11","date_gmt":"2025-03-01T07:26:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-761-35056-19-dated-17-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-01T09:26:11","modified_gmt":"2025-03-01T07:26:11","slug":"case-no-761-35056-19-dated-17-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-761-35056-19-dated-17-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 761\/35056\/19 dated 17\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Subject of the dispute – the correctness of closing the criminal proceedings due to violation of pre-trial investigation terms.<\/p>\n

The court’s main arguments: First, the period of familiarization with pre-trial investigation materials is not included in the total investigation period. Second, only documents collected by the prosecution are considered pre-trial investigation materials. Third, the defense side does not have the authority to form pre-trial investigation materials and only provides its own evidence upon request.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court confirmed the previous position that the period of the prosecution’s familiarization with the defense materials does not affect the pre-trial investigation terms.<\/p>\n

The court’s decision – to leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, that is, to support the closure of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

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

Subject of the dispute – the correctness of closing the criminal proceedings due to violation of pre-trial investigation terms. The court’s main arguments: First, the period of familiarization with pre-trial investigation materials is not included in the total investigation period. Second, only documents collected by the prosecution are considered pre-trial investigation materials. Third, the defense…<\/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-6090","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\/6090","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=6090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}