The Supreme Court Denied Compensation After 7 Years of Criminal Prosecution: What Prevented Receiving 6 Million UAH

The right to compensation for moral damage under the Law of Ukraine "On the Procedure for Compensation of Damage Caused to a Citizen by Illegal Actions of Pre-trial Investigation Bodies, the Prosecutor's Office, and the Court" arises only in the case of full rehabilitation of the person. Release from criminal liability due to decriminalization of the act or expiration of the statute of limitations is considered a non-rehabilitating ground and does not create the right to compensation. This conclusion was reached by the Civil Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to recover 6.12 million UAH in moral damages from the state. He stated that he had been under investigation and trial for more than seven years within three criminal cases, suffered restrictions due to the application of a preventive measure, was forced to participate in numerous procedural actions, and for a long time had to prove the groundlessness of the accusations. In his opinion, this caused significant moral suffering and negatively affected his reputation.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim and awarded almost 746 thousand UAH in moral damage compensation. The court reasoned that the prolonged criminal prosecution and restrictions related to the preventive measure significantly changed the plaintiff's usual way of life and caused him psychological suffering.

However, the Poltava Court of Appeal overturned this decision and dismissed the claim.

What the Courts Established

During the case review, it was established that the criminal proceedings referred to by the plaintiff did not end with his full rehabilitation.

Thus, in one proceeding, the person was released from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. In another proceeding, the court released him from criminal liability due to the entry into force of a law that abolished criminal liability for the relevant act. In yet another criminal proceeding, a final court decision had not been made at the time of the civil case review.

These circumstances were decisive in assessing the existence of the right to compensation.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Civil Cassation Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court.

The Supreme Court reminded that Article 2 of the Compensation Law contains an exhaustive list of cases when a person can claim compensation from the state. In particular, such a right arises after an acquittal or closure of criminal proceedings on rehabilitating grounds, when the person's innocence is effectively confirmed.

The court emphasized that the right to compensation under this Law is linked precisely to the full rehabilitation of the person.

Rehabilitating grounds mean that the person is recognized as not involved in committing a criminal offense, and their rights, honor, dignity, and reputation are subject to restoration. In contrast, non-rehabilitating grounds do not indicate the person's innocence but only exclude the possibility of further criminal prosecution for other reasons defined by law.

Decriminalization and Statute of Limitations Do Not Grant the Right to Compensation

The Supreme Court specifically noted that release from criminal liability due to decriminalization of the act or expiration of the statute of limitations are non-rehabilitating grounds.

Such decisions do not establish the person's innocence and cannot be grounds for compensation of moral damage according to Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the special Compensation Law. The court stressed that this legal position is consistent and has been repeatedly confirmed in the Supreme Court's practice.

The Civil Cassation Court also noted that the legality of procedural decisions and actions of pre-trial investigation bodies should be resolved in criminal proceedings. In this case, the plaintiff did not receive procedural rehabilitation, which is a necessary condition for applying the special compensation mechanism.

Court Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the plaintiff and his lawyer and left the decision of the Poltava Court of Appeal unchanged.

In case No. 531/438/24, the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court confirmed that the right to compensation for damage caused by the actions of pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor's office, or the court arises only if there are grounds indicating the full rehabilitation of the person. Release from criminal liability due to decriminalization of the act or expiration of the statute of limitations does not belong to such grounds.

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.