Ten convictions and a new theft 8 days after release: what the Supreme Court decided

The issue of applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine remains one of the most controversial in criminal proceedings, as it requires an individual assessment not only of the circumstances of the crime but also of the offender's personality.

In the ruling in case No. 466/4996/25 dated June 2, 2026, the Supreme Court, composed of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court, considered the question of the justification for releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence on probation.

Case circumstances

The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Lviv found a man guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The courts established that on March 11, 2025, the convicted person, while in the neurosurgery ward of a hospital in Lviv, under martial law conditions, freely accessed and stole the victim's mobile phone worth 8,005 UAH.

As a result of the case review, the court of first instance sentenced him to five years of imprisonment but, based on Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, released him from serving the sentence on probation for one year and six months.

The Lviv Court of Appeal amended the verdict only by excluding the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and left the rest of the verdict unchanged.

The prosecutor appealed this decision in cassation, pointing out that the convicted person had previously been held criminally liable ten times, was released on probation three times, and committed a new crime eight days after release from imprisonment, indicating the absence of grounds for reapplying the probation institution to him.

Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court disagreed with the approach of the appellate court and drew attention to the requirements for proper justification of applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court noted that besides deciding on the type and size of the sentence, the court must establish sufficient grounds for releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence on probation.

The court must properly motivate such a decision, investigate and evaluate all circumstances relevant to the case, and consider that the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code apply only when appropriate conditions and grounds exist.

The Supreme Court emphasized the significant number of previous convictions of the convicted person and the ineffectiveness of the previous application of the probation institution to him.

The court noted that the man had been convicted 10 times for intentional crimes against property. Moreover, he was released on probation three times under Article 75 of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that materials of this criminal proceeding show that the convicted person, eight days after release from imprisonment (March 3, 2025), where he served a sentence under Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code, committed theft of a phone on March 11, 2025, under martial law conditions.

The court stressed that the above, in the opinion of the panel of judges, indicates the convicted person's persistent antisocial behavior, propensity to commit criminally punishable offenses against property, and unwillingness to reform.

The Supreme Court stated that by leaving the local court's verdict unchanged regarding the application of the probation institution, that court took a formal approach to the issues raised by the prosecutor in the appeal.

The court additionally emphasized that the mitigating circumstances considered by the appellate court could have been grounds for imposing the minimum sentence but were insufficient for release from serving it.

The Supreme Court indicated that the mitigating circumstances considered by the courts, compensation for the victim's damage, and information about the convicted person were grounds for imposing the minimum sentence under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code but are insufficient for applying the institution of release from serving the sentence on probation.

Furthermore, the court noted that the mere fact that the convicted person has two minor children, considering that he is unemployed and has no permanent legal source of income, does not, in the panel's opinion, indicate that these children are dependent on him.

Thus, the Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor's cassation appeal, canceled the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and appointed a new appellate review.

This ruling confirms that sincere remorse, compensation for damages, and other mitigating circumstances alone are not sufficient for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court must assess whether the person can reform without serving the sentence, considering their previous criminal history and results of previous chances for correction.

Additionally, read in the article of the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" about how a theft case was returned for a new trial due to a procedural error of the court.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.