The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Changed the Approach to Sentencing for Identical Crimes Committed Before and After the Previous Verdict

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its ruling dated June 24, 2026, in case No. 607/9097/20, formulated a new approach to the application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and departed from the previous legal conclusions of the united chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court.

The court addressed the issue of how to impose the final punishment if a person committed several identical criminal offenses, some of which were committed before the previous verdict was issued, and others after it.

This issue is of significant practical importance because the legality of determining the final punishment, the unity of judicial practice, and adherence to the principles of justice, individualization of punishment, and legal certainty depend on the correct application of Articles 70 and 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Circumstances of the case

The courts established that the accused was part of an organized group whose members, during 2019–2020, called victims, pretending to be police officers, other state authorities, or penitentiary service employees, and under the pretext of helping relatives who allegedly caused traffic accidents, seized the victims' money.

According to the first-instance court's verdict, the accused was convicted of several episodes of fraud, attempted fraud, and unauthorized assumption of official powers. When imposing the sentence, the court simultaneously applied the rules of Part 4 of Article 70 and Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On appeal, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court due to the presence of an exceptional legal issue regarding the correct application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in cases where identical criminal offenses were committed both before and after the previous verdict was issued.

Position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

The Grand Chamber noted that the provisions of Articles 70 and 71 of the Criminal Code regulate different legal matters and are applied depending on when exactly the person committed the criminal offense — before or after the previous verdict was issued.

Article 70 of the Criminal Code is applied to determine the punishment for a combination of criminal offenses, including the case provided for in Part 4 of this article, if after the verdict is issued it is established that the convicted person is also guilty of another criminal offense committed before the previous verdict.

In contrast, Article 71 regulates the procedure for imposing punishment for a combination of verdicts, i.e., in the case of committing a new criminal offense after the previous verdict but before the full serving of the sentence.

The Grand Chamber pointed out that the current regulatory framework does not contain special provisions that separately define the peculiarities of sentencing in cases of so-called "discontinuous repetition" of identical criminal offenses, when some of these offenses were committed before the previous verdict, and others after it.

This has led to the formation of different approaches in judicial practice regarding the application of Part 4 of Article 70 in such cases.

The court stated that the application of Articles 70 and 71 in conjunction with Articles 32 and 33 of the Criminal Code forms an integrated mechanism for determining the final punishment in cases where a person is convicted of several criminal offenses, some of which were committed both before and after the previous verdict.

Thus, in this mechanism, for the application of Part 4 of Article 70, the important factor is not the repetition of identical criminal offenses but the time of their commission — before or after the previous verdict.

The Grand Chamber indicated that it cannot agree with the legal conclusions of the united chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court and considers it necessary to depart from them because such conclusions do not correspond to the literal meaning of Part 4 of Article 70, the systemic connection of this norm with Articles 32, 33, and 71, as well as the general principles of sentencing.

The criminal law does not provide for the possibility of not applying Part 4 of Article 70 solely on the grounds that the relevant criminal offenses committed by the person both before and after the previous verdict are identical and covered by one article or part of the Special Part of the Criminal Code.

The Grand Chamber noted that the issue of criminal-law qualification of identical criminal offenses and the issue of sentencing for their commission are not identical in content.

The identity of criminal offenses may affect their qualification, but by itself does not change the procedure prescribed by criminal law for determining punishment when some of these offenses were committed before the previous verdict.

The court noted that in Part 4 of Article 70, the legislator established rules regardless of whether the committed acts are covered by one part of an article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code or by different parts (articles), or whether they are identical, homogeneous, or heterogeneous.

The Grand Chamber emphasized that the application of Part 4 of Article 70 is exclusively conditioned by the temporal criterion of committing criminal offenses — the presence of episodes committed before the previous verdict that were not covered by it.

The Grand Chamber also noted that the provisions of the Criminal Code regulating sentencing do not provide alternative approaches to calculating the final punishment depending on the nature of the criminal offenses (identical, homogeneous, or heterogeneous) committed by the person both before and after the previous verdict. Such a criterion is absent in the articles of this section.

Therefore, when determining the final punishment, the time of committing criminal offenses — before or after the previous verdict — is of significant importance. The provisions of Part 4 of Article 70 must be applied regardless of whether the criminal offenses, some of which were committed before the previous verdict and others after it, are identical.

In view of the above, the Grand Chamber concluded that if after the verdict in the case (hereinafter - verdict 1) it is established that the convicted person is guilty of several criminal offenses, some committed before verdict 1 and others after it, the final punishment is imposed applying the rules of both Article 70 and Article 71 of the Criminal Code in the following sequence:

1) first, punishment is imposed for each criminal offense separately committed before verdict 1;

2) then, according to the rules of Part 1 of Article 70, punishment is determined for the combination of criminal offenses committed before verdict 1; after that, according to Part 4 of Article 70;

3) then, punishment is imposed for each criminal offense separately committed after verdict 1;

4) then, according to the rules of Part 1 of Article 70, punishment is determined for the combination of criminal offenses committed after verdict 1;

5) after that, according to Article 71, the final punishment is determined for the combination of verdicts, namely, the unserved part of the punishment determined in point 2 is fully or partially added to the punishment determined in point 4.

If two verdicts (hereinafter - verdict 1 and verdict 2) were issued against a person and it is established that criminal offenses were committed before verdict 1, after it, and after verdict 2, the punishment is imposed taking into account the above order.

The Grand Chamber noted that such a phased mechanism is consistent with the principles of individualization and fairness of punishment.

Based on the above, the Grand Chamber satisfied the prosecutor's cassation appeal, partially satisfied the convicted person's cassation appeal, changed the court decisions by releasing the convicted person from punishment under Part 1 of Article 353 of the Criminal Code due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, and at the same time formulated a new approach mandatory for judicial practice regarding the application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Thus, the Court departed from the previous position of the united chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court and emphasized that the decisive criterion for applying Articles 70 and 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is the time of committing criminal offenses, not their identity.

This conclusion is intended to ensure the unity of judicial practice and predictable application of criminal law in cases of sentencing for criminal offenses, some of which were committed before the previous verdict, and others after it.

Additionally, read another important position where the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court applied the ECHR position regarding excessive court fees for legal entities.

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