{"id":6825,"date":"2025-03-16T09:28:45","date_gmt":"2025-03-16T07:28:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-991-7253-23-dated-24-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-16T09:28:45","modified_gmt":"2025-03-16T07:28:45","slug":"case-no-991-7253-23-dated-24-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-991-7253-23-dated-24-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 991\/7253\/23 dated 24\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Subject of Dispute: Possibility of Reviewing an Investigating Judge’s Ruling on Permit for Special Pre-trial Investigation Based on Newly Discovered Circumstances.<\/p>\n

Main Arguments of the Court:
\n1. Review based on newly discovered circumstances is an extraordinary procedure applied in exceptional cases.
\n2. Not all investigating judge’s rulings can be reviewed, only those that create significant restrictions on a person’s rights and have no other legal remedies.
\n3. The investigating judge’s decisions are temporary and have mechanisms for periodic review or appeal.<\/p>\n

Court Decision: To uphold the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court on refusal to open appellate proceedings and reject the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n

Note: The Court deviates from its previous position regarding the impossibility of reviewing investigating judge’s rulings based on newly discovered circumstances.<\/p>\n

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

Subject of Dispute: Possibility of Reviewing an Investigating Judge’s Ruling on Permit for Special Pre-trial Investigation Based on Newly Discovered Circumstances. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. Review based on newly discovered circumstances is an extraordinary procedure applied in exceptional cases. 2. Not all investigating judge’s rulings can be reviewed, only those that create significant…<\/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-6825","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\/6825","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=6825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}