When Reconciliation Exempts from Liability and How to Qualify the "Leak" of Data about the Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support: Legal Positions of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court presented the latest review of the judicial practice of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court – for June 2026, which reflects important legal positions in criminal and criminal procedural law.

In the field of criminal law, conclusions were made that:

– for the application of the institution of exemption from criminal liability due to reconciliation between the offender and the victim, it is necessary to establish only those conditions and grounds directly specified in Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Establishing other additional requirements as a prerequisite for applying the provisions of this article is incorrect;

– to recognize a person guilty of committing a criminal offense provided for in Articles 185, 186, 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and other provisions establishing liability for misappropriation of another’s property, a mercenary motive is not mandatory. The key is proving direct intent to unlawfully and irreversibly seize another’s property in order to gain the ability to dispose of it at one’s own discretion. The motives that prompted the person to such actions do not affect their qualification but may be taken into account when sentencing and applying other norms of criminal law;

– posting information in the Telegram messenger about the location of Territorial Centers of Recruitment and Social Support units to warn community members about mobilization measures is subject to qualification under Part 1 of Article 114-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as obstruction of the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine during a special period.

In the field of criminal procedural law, it was noted that:

– the decision to conduct a hearing fully or partially in the absence of a lawyer is made by the court based on all circumstances of the proceedings: the complexity of the case or legal issues, the presence of previously stated positions, the presence of other lawyers, and the explanation of the accused. If the hearing is conducted without a lawyer, the court must compensate for their absence as much as possible by other procedural means;

– penal institutions or bodies are not entitled to appeal court decisions of the first instance made following consideration of their motion (submission) concerning the execution of the sentence. If, after the opening of appellate proceedings, it is established that the appellate review is carried out based on an appeal filed by a person who does not have the right to submit it, the appellate court must issue a ruling to close the appellate proceedings;

– if an expert examination was conducted based on a decision of the pre-trial investigation body, concluding a contract with the expert institution is not mandatory. The absence of information in the indictment regarding the costs of conducting the examination is not an unconditional ground for recognizing it as inadmissible evidence.

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 informed about the most important events.