The Supreme Court clarified the rules for considering applications for review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances
The Supreme Court clarified that the single-judge consideration by an appellate court judge of a person’s application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances does not comply with the requirements of part 11 of Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case details
A citizen appealed against the prosecutor’s inaction. However, the investigating judge returned his complaint. The appellate court agreed with this decision. After that, the applicant requested a review of the appellate court’s ruling based on newly discovered circumstances.
Positions of the courts of first and appellate instances
The investigating judge returned the applicant’s complaint about the prosecutor’s inaction due to its submission in violation of jurisdiction rules.
The appellate court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and left the investigating judge’s ruling unchanged. Subsequently, based on part 4 of Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings on the applicant’s request to review the previous appellate court ruling based on newly discovered circumstances, since the submitted application did not indicate circumstances that, according to part 2 of Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code, can be considered newly discovered.
Position of the Supreme Court
The Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate court.
The panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Chamber indicated that the provisions of part 2 of Article 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which state that "a judge ... decides on the opening of criminal proceedings based on newly discovered or exceptional circumstances," should be understood as granting the judge the authority to verify the grounds for opening proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances and to decide on opening such proceedings or refusing to open them.
As follows from the contested ruling, the applicant’s request for review of the appellate court ruling based on newly discovered circumstances was considered by a single appellate court judge, which does not comply with the requirements of part 11 of Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Moreover, in this ruling, the appellate court judge established that the application did not contain grounds provided for in Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Code for conducting criminal proceedings based on newly discovered circumstances, i.e., effectively considered the application on the merits alone.
Resolution of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court dated June 17, 2026, in case No. 201/1790/26 (proceeding No. 51-1148km26).
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.
