The Supreme Court Changed the Practice Regarding the Review of Investigative Judges' Rulings
The Supreme Court drew attention to the specifics of reviewing criminal proceedings under martial law conditions, in particular to the practice of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court (CCC SC) regarding the possibility of reviewing investigative judges' rulings based on newly discovered circumstances.
As noted by the Supreme Court, until recently, judicial practice was based on the premise that such review was impossible. This conclusion was made in the resolution of the united chamber of the CCC SC dated February 3, 2020, in case No. 522/14170/18. The reasoning was that such rulings are not final decisions in the case and do not produce final criminal-legal consequences, and the review institution itself is an extraordinary procedure. Because of this, appellate courts for a long time refused to open proceedings on such complaints.
The situation changed after the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated April 10, 2024, No. 4-r(II)/2024, in which the CCU stated that part 1 of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not contain a prohibition on reviewing any court decisions that have come into legal force based on newly discovered circumstances. At the same time, the CCU outlined the conditions for such review: the presence of significant and convincing grounds, adherence to reasonable time limits of the pre-trial investigation, as well as the inconsistency of the ruling's validity with the purpose of criminal proceedings.
Following this, the Criminal Cassation Panel of the Supreme Court adopted a resolution on February 24, 2025, in case No. 991/7253/23, in which it departed from its previous conclusion and expanded citizens' rights but established clear boundaries to avoid procedural chaos. The panel concluded on the application of legal norms according to which an investigative judge's ruling can be reviewed by the investigative judge during the pre-trial investigation based on newly discovered circumstances specified in part 2 of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. However, this is only possible in cases where the ruling unjustifiably restricts constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and its further validity would contradict the purpose of criminal proceedings, as well as if it has not lost legal force due to the expiration of its term or due to its execution and there are no other means of legal protection of these rights and freedoms (appeal, periodic review, new petition, etc.).
Regarding the expiration of the term, the Supreme Court gave as an example a ruling on detention, the term of which is limited to 60 days. The Court points out that there is no legal need to review such a ruling six months later based on newly discovered circumstances if its term has already expired and the person is held in custody based on a completely different (new) court decision.
In summary, the Supreme Court also noted that when a person has other ordinary means of protecting or compensating their rights, the institution of newly discovered circumstances should not be applied. In particular, the Supreme Court explains that in the case of an investigative judge's refusal to oblige the prosecutor to perform a certain action, it is simpler and more effective for the person to submit the relevant petition again rather than initiate a complex extraordinary procedure for reviewing the ruling based on newly discovered circumstances.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
