Case Law of the Supreme Court
Pre-trial investigation
1. The statement of facts in the notice of suspicion must be fully reproduced in the indictment 
2. Obligation to ensure the participation of defense counsel during the unquestionable admission of guilt in criminal proceedings 3. The return of an indictment in connection with the investigation of a misdemeanor as a crime cannot be appealed
2. Obligation to ensure the participation of defense counsel during the unquestionable admission of guilt in criminal proceedings 3. The return of an indictment in connection with the investigation of a misdemeanor as a crime cannot be appealed Judicial control over the observance of the rights, freedoms, and interests of persons in criminal proceedings
1. The parties have the right to lodge an appeal against the ruling of the investigating judge on change of the measure of restraint 2. The ruling of the investigating judge on refuse to apply a measure of restraint in the form of detention and the application of a personal obligation shall be subject to appeal.
2. The ruling of the investigating judge on refuse to apply a measure of restraint in the form of detention and the application of a personal obligation shall be subject to appeal. Declaring the evidence as inadmissible
Terms of pre-trial investigation
1. Sending an indictment outside the pre-trial investigation term has the effect of closing the criminal proceedings 2. The fact of notification of the completion of the pre-trial investigation must be duly confirmed 3. The prosecutor's request to the defense for granting access to the materials to be used by the defense as evidence during court proceedings under part 6 of Art. 290 of the CPC of Ukraine, does not affect the course of the pre-trial investigation 4. The Supreme Court has concluded on the calculation of the pre-trial investigation terms in cases of revocation of the decision to close criminal proceedings 5. The implications of the prosecutor's decision to revoke the suspension of the pre-trial investigation: Supreme Court's latest legal opinion 6. The Supreme Court has concluded regarding the time limits of inquiry
2. The fact of notification of the completion of the pre-trial investigation must be duly confirmed 3. The prosecutor's request to the defense for granting access to the materials to be used by the defense as evidence during court proceedings under part 6 of Art. 290 of the CPC of Ukraine, does not affect the course of the pre-trial investigation 4. The Supreme Court has concluded on the calculation of the pre-trial investigation terms in cases of revocation of the decision to close criminal proceedings 5. The implications of the prosecutor's decision to revoke the suspension of the pre-trial investigation: Supreme Court's latest legal opinion 6. The Supreme Court has concluded regarding the time limits of inquiry Judicial proceedings
1. The right to appeal against the court’s of first instance selection or continuation of a measure of restraint in the form of detention 2. Obligation of the appellate court to directly examine the evidence 3. The suspension of the pre-trial investigation in connection with the search for a person does not indicate that he/she is evading the investigation, therefore it does not result in stopping the calculation of the statute of limitations for bringing a person to criminal liability 4. A preventive measure in the form of detention applied to a person who is wanted is different from the permission for apprehension with a purpose of compulsory attendance and its selection and can be appealed in the appeal procedure 5. The resolution on the determination of a group of investigators may be submitted to the court at any stage of the trial to verify the authority of a person to conduct a pre-trial investigation 6. A change of the legal qualification of a person's actions, based on the actual circumstances of the case, to a less serious crime by the court of appeal does not require the formulation of a new charge in the court decision 7. The court of appeal shall first establish the elements of a criminal offense in the actions of an accused and then decide on the discharge of the person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations 8. Does transferring bail to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine mitigate the punishment: The position of the Supreme Court
2. Obligation of the appellate court to directly examine the evidence 3. The suspension of the pre-trial investigation in connection with the search for a person does not indicate that he/she is evading the investigation, therefore it does not result in stopping the calculation of the statute of limitations for bringing a person to criminal liability 4. A preventive measure in the form of detention applied to a person who is wanted is different from the permission for apprehension with a purpose of compulsory attendance and its selection and can be appealed in the appeal procedure 5. The resolution on the determination of a group of investigators may be submitted to the court at any stage of the trial to verify the authority of a person to conduct a pre-trial investigation 6. A change of the legal qualification of a person's actions, based on the actual circumstances of the case, to a less serious crime by the court of appeal does not require the formulation of a new charge in the court decision 7. The court of appeal shall first establish the elements of a criminal offense in the actions of an accused and then decide on the discharge of the person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations 8. Does transferring bail to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine mitigate the punishment: The position of the Supreme Court Criminal proceedings on the basis of agreements
Gross violation of labor law (Article 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Fraud (Article 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
1. Distinguishing fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) from civil torts 2. Distinguishing between fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and financial fraud (Article 222 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) 3. Concerning the distinguishing feature between the adjacent crimes provided for in Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud) and Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (infliction of property damage by deceit or breach of confidence), Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine
2. Distinguishing between fraud (Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and financial fraud (Article 222 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) 3. Concerning the distinguishing feature between the adjacent crimes provided for in Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud) and Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (infliction of property damage by deceit or breach of confidence), Art. 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and Art. 192 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine Misappropriation, embezzlement, conversion of property by malversation (Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Evasion of taxes, duties, or other compulsory payments (Article 212 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Making bankrupt (Article 219 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Abuse of authority or office (Article 364 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Forgery in office (Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Neglect of official duty (Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Accepting an offer, promise, or receiving an improper advantage by an official (Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Proposal, promise, or providing an improper advantage to an official (Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Abuse of influence (Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)
Discharge from criminal liability, serving a sentence due to expiry of statute of limitations
1. Discharge from criminal liability due to expiry of statute of limitations is not related to the admission of guilt 2. The consent of the participants in the trial is not required for the discharge of a person from serving a sentence due to expiry of statute of limitations 3. Lack of explanation of the right to discharge from criminal liability due to expiry of statute of limitations by the court of first or appellate instance is a significant violation of the requirements of criminal law 4. The recent legal opinion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: Discharge from criminal liability due to the statute of limitations
2. The consent of the participants in the trial is not required for the discharge of a person from serving a sentence due to expiry of statute of limitations 3. Lack of explanation of the right to discharge from criminal liability due to expiry of statute of limitations by the court of first or appellate instance is a significant violation of the requirements of criminal law 4. The recent legal opinion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: Discharge from criminal liability due to the statute of limitations