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 of 24 June 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. This ruling departed from the previous legal conclusions of the united chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court.

The court addressed the issue of how to impose a final punishment when a person has committed several identical criminal offences, some before and some after a previous verdict was issued.

This issue holds significant practical importance, as the correct application of Articles 70 and 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is crucial for determining the legality of the final punishment, ensuring uniformity in judicial practice, and upholding the principles of justice, individualisation of punishment, and legal certainty.

Circumstances of the Case

The courts established that the accused was a member of an organised group. Between 2019 and 2020, members of this group contacted victims, impersonating police officers, other state authorities, or penitentiary service employees. They then defrauded victims of money under the pretext of assisting relatives who had allegedly caused traffic accidents.

According to the first-instance court's verdict, the accused was convicted of multiple counts of fraud, attempted fraud, and unauthorised 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.

The case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on appeal due to an exceptional legal issue concerning the correct application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in instances where identical criminal offences were committed both before and after a previous verdict was issued.

Position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

The Grand Chamber noted that Articles 70 and 71 of the Criminal Code regulate distinct legal matters and are applied based on when a criminal offence was committed — before or after a previous verdict was issued.

Article 70 of the Criminal Code applies to determining punishment for a combination of criminal offences, including the scenario outlined in Part 4 of this article, where, after a verdict is issued, it is established that the convicted person is also guilty of another criminal offence committed prior to the previous verdict.

In contrast, Article 71 governs the procedure for imposing punishment for a combination of verdicts, specifically when a new criminal offence is committed after a previous verdict but before the full serving of the sentence.

The Grand Chamber highlighted that the current regulatory framework lacks specific provisions that separately define the peculiarities of sentencing in cases of so-called "discontinuous repetition" of identical criminal offences, where some offences were committed before the previous verdict and others after it.

This absence has led to the development of differing approaches in judicial practice regarding the application of Part 4 of Article 70 in such cases.

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

Thus, within this mechanism, for the application of Part 4 of Article 70, the crucial factor is not the repetition of identical criminal offences but the timing of their commission — before or after the previous verdict.

The Grand Chamber indicated that it cannot concur with the legal conclusions of the united chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court and deems it necessary to depart from them. Such conclusions, it argues, 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, or the general principles of sentencing.

Criminal law does not provide for the possibility of not applying Part 4 of Article 70 solely on the grounds that the relevant criminal offences committed by an individual, 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 offences and the issue of sentencing for their commission are not identical in content.

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

The court noted that in Part 4 of Article 70, the legislator established rules irrespective 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 emphasised that the application of Part 4 of Article 70 is exclusively conditioned by the temporal criterion of committing criminal offences — specifically, 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 offer alternative approaches to calculating the final punishment based on the nature of the criminal offences (identical, homogeneous, or heterogeneous) committed by a person both before and after a previous verdict. Such a criterion is absent from the articles in this section.

Therefore, when determining the final punishment, the timing of the criminal offences — whether 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 offences, some committed before the previous verdict and others after it, are identical.

In light of the above, the Grand Chamber concluded that if, after a verdict in a case (hereinafter referred to as 'verdict 1'), it is established that the convicted person is guilty of several criminal offences, some committed before verdict 1 and others after it, the final punishment is imposed by 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 offence 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 offences committed before verdict 1; subsequently, according to Part 4 of Article 70.

3) Then, punishment is imposed for each criminal offence 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 offences committed after verdict 1.

5) Following that, according to Article 71, the final punishment is determined for the combination of verdicts, specifically, 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 referred to as 'verdict 1' and 'verdict 2') have been issued against a person, and it is established that criminal offences were committed before verdict 1, after it, and after verdict 2, the punishment is imposed in accordance with the aforementioned order.

The Grand Chamber noted that this phased mechanism aligns with the principles of individualisation and fairness of punishment.

Based on the above, the Grand Chamber upheld the prosecutor's cassation appeal, partially upheld the convicted person's cassation appeal, amended 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 simultaneously 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 emphasised that the decisive criterion for applying Articles 70 and 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is the timing of committing criminal offences, not their identity.

This conclusion aims to ensure uniformity in judicial practice and the predictable application of criminal law in cases of sentencing for criminal offences, some of which were committed before a 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, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.