If the qualification of a crime depends on the amount of damage, this issue cannot be considered in civil proceedings — Supreme Court

The Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court annulled the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal in a case concerning kidnapping, robbery, unlawful seizure of a vehicle, and extortion. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed significant violations of the Criminal Procedure Code by failing to consider the prosecutor’s appeal on the merits and by annulling the verdict regarding civil claims, casting doubt on the amount of damage that directly affected the criminal-legal qualification of the defendants' actions.

Case circumstances

According to the criminal proceedings materials, in February 2015, three persons acting in concert staged a traffic accident in Lviv to kidnap a man and a woman. The victims were forcibly placed into cars, their hands tied, and their eyes blindfolded.

The man was later left in a park, while the woman was illegally held in an apartment for almost three days. During the kidnapping, the attackers simultaneously seized her money, jewelry, and other property, and demanded $150,000 USD from the victim’s parents for her release. The woman was freed by police officers.

In 2022, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Lviv found two defendants guilty of unlawful deprivation of liberty, unlawful seizure of a vehicle, robbery, and extortion, and the third guilty of unlawful deprivation of liberty. At the same time, all three were acquitted of hostage-taking charges. The court also partially satisfied the victims' civil claims for compensation of material and moral damages.

During a new appellate review in 2025, the Lviv Court of Appeal annulled the verdict only regarding the resolution of civil claims and ordered a new hearing in civil proceedings, leaving the rest of the verdict unchanged. This decision became the subject of the cassation review.

The appellate court was obliged to consider all appeals

The Criminal Cassation Court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that after annulling the previous appellate ruling and ordering a new hearing, the appellate court was obliged to reconsider all appeals that were the subject of the previous appellate review and respond to each of them.

However, the appellate court did not consider the prosecutor’s appeal on the merits, justifying this by the fact that the prosecutor did not challenge the previous appellate ruling in cassation.

The Supreme Court noted that such a conclusion contradicts the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the previous ruling was annulled, the appellate court had to reconsider the prosecution’s appeal and decide whether to grant or deny it. The Criminal Cassation Court recognized the failure to consider this appeal as a significant violation of criminal procedural law.

Why the Supreme Court disagreed with transferring civil claims for a new hearing

The Supreme Court paid special attention to the appellate court’s decision regarding civil claims.

The appellate court concluded that there was insufficient evidence confirming the value of some of the stolen property, including an Omega De Ville Ladymatic watch, citing the absence of documents proving its origin and value, as well as contradictions in the victim’s testimony. For these reasons, the court annulled the verdict concerning civil claims and ordered a new hearing in civil proceedings.

At the same time, the Criminal Cassation Court pointed out the inconsistency of this approach.

The appellate court left unchanged the qualification of the defendants' actions under Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as robbery aimed at seizing property in especially large amounts, but at the same time questioned the value of the property, which directly affects the presence of this qualifying feature.

The Supreme Court in case 466/4414/15-k emphasized that the value of the stolen property in this case is important not only for resolving civil claims but also directly affects the correctness of the criminal-legal qualification of the defendants' actions. Under such circumstances, this issue cannot be subject to review by a court specializing in civil cases.

Regarding arguments about violation of the secrecy of the deliberation room

The Supreme Court also rejected the defense’s arguments about violation of the secrecy of the deliberation room.

The Criminal Cassation Court noted that the mere fact that judges made other decisions on the day the verdict was announced does not in itself indicate a significant violation of Article 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such a violation can be grounds for annulment of a court decision only if it calls into question the independence and impartiality of the judges or could have hindered the adoption of a lawful and reasoned decision. The Supreme Court found no such circumstances in this case.

Regarding waiver of counsel

The Supreme Court also found the prosecutor’s arguments about violation of the right to defense unfounded.

The Criminal Cassation Court noted that the version of Part 2 of Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force at the time of the appellate review did not require the mandatory presence of a lawyer in court when the court accepted the defendant’s waiver of counsel. At the same time, the prosecutor did not prove how this decision violated the defendant’s right to defense, especially since the defendant himself did not object to waiving this counsel, and his interests during the appellate review were represented by another lawyer.

Supreme Court decision

The Criminal Cassation Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and defenders, annulled the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal dated February 27, 2025, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.

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