The Supreme Court explained in which cases traffic accident offenders are exempt from criminal liability

Is it possible to exempt a traffic accident offender from criminal liability if he reconciled with the victim but at the same time violated traffic rules that protect the public interest? This question has long caused different approaches in the practice of the Supreme Court. The United Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court adopted an important ruling in case No. 629/612/25, resolving a long-standing dispute between the chambers of the Supreme Court.

The incident that initiated the case occurred on July 2, 2024, in the Kharkiv region. The driver, while operating a vehicle, violated the requirements of clause 12.3 of the Traffic Rules. Approaching the intersection, the driver did not take measures to timely reduce speed and struck a pedestrian. As a result of the accident, the victim sustained injuries of moderate severity.

On February 18, 2025, the Lozova City District Court sentenced the driver under part 1 of article 286 of the Criminal Code to 1 year of restriction of liberty with deprivation of the right to drive for 1 year. Based on article 75 of the Criminal Code, the driver was exempted from punishment with a probation period of 3 years. The Kharkiv Court of Appeal left this verdict unchanged despite the victim's statement about compensation and reconciliation.

The defense attorney filed a cassation appeal, indicating a significant violation — the courts did not explain to the accused the possibility of terminating proceedings due to reconciliation, although the damages were fully compensated.

The case was referred to the United Chamber for consideration because the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber considered it necessary to depart from the practice of other chambers, which previously stated the impossibility of reconciliation in similar crimes. The judges concluded that it was necessary to depart from a number of previous legal positions set out in cases No. 689/695/17, No. 166/865/23, No. 640/20302/18, and No. 643/5610/24.

The Supreme Court's position on the application of Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The United Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the conditions and grounds for exempting a person from criminal liability due to reconciliation with the victim, as provided by Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The Court noted that for the application of this provision, two groups of requirements must be simultaneously fulfilled:

• the person must commit a criminal offense or negligent minor crime for the first time;
• there must be reconciliation with the victim and full compensation for the damages caused or elimination of the harm inflicted.

The United Chamber noted that the list of conditions and grounds defined by Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is exhaustive. Therefore, the court is not entitled to supplement it with additional criteria not provided by law. In particular, references to the need to protect the "public interest" or other considerations absent in Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine cannot be an independent basis for refusing to exempt a person from criminal liability if all the conditions established by law are met.

The Supreme Court recognized that the crime under part 1 of article 286 of the Criminal Code is indeed a crime with two objects. That is, harm is caused to both private and public interests. At the same time, Article 46 of the Criminal Code contains an exhaustive list of cases when exemption from criminal liability due to reconciliation is not allowed. The law provides only two such exceptions:

• commission of a corruption criminal offense;
• commission of a criminal offense related to violation of traffic safety rules or vehicle operation if the person was in a state of alcohol, drug, or other intoxication.

In the absence of the exceptions provided by law, the court is not entitled to refuse the application of Article 46 of the Criminal Code, citing additional considerations.

In the case under review, the court established that the accused was sober, committed a negligent minor crime for the first time, fully compensated the damage caused, and the victim confirmed in writing reconciliation and absence of any claims. Under such circumstances, all the grounds provided by law for exempting a person from criminal liability under Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine were present.

The court annulled the verdict of the Lozova court and the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal. The driver was exempted from criminal liability under Article 46 of the Criminal Code, and the proceedings were closed.

For the application of exemption from liability due to reconciliation, it is necessary to establish the presence of only those conditions and grounds directly specified in Article 46 of the Criminal Code. Any additional requirements by the courts constitute incorrect application of the legal norm.

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 account to stay informed about the most important events.