The SC Grand Chamber Cancelled the Courts' Judgments Following the ECtHR's Judgment in the Case of Double Prosecution of the Applicant

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reviewed the decisions of previous courts on the basis of a finding by an international judicial institution, the jurisdiction of which is recognized by Ukraine, that Ukraine had violated its international obligations.

By the ruling of the judge of the Zarichnyi District Court of Sumy of June 21, 2007, the person was brought to administrative responsibility under Art. 173 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences (hereinafter - CUAO) (minor hooliganism) and was subjected to an administrative penalty in the form of administrative arrest for a period of three days.

The prosecutor, believing that the person's actions had elements of a crime, appealed against the ruling, since the applicant was charged under part 3 of Art. 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. On February 6, 2008, a local court judge granted the prosecutor's appeal, cancelled the ruling of June 21, 2007, and closed the administrative offence proceedings. The court of appeal upheld this judgment.

According to the sentence of the Zarichnyi District Court of Sumy of December 29, 2008, the person was found guilty of committing hooliganism under part 3 of Art. 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years and one month. The court of appeal changed the sentence of the local court in terms of punishment and imprisoned the person for a period of two years. The Supreme Court of Ukraine refused to review the judgment.

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of December 10, 2020, in the case of Chernov v. Ukraine found a violation of Art. 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on account of the applicant being twice tried and punished for the same offence.

Reviewing the judgments of the courts, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court stated that no one could be brought to legal responsibility of the same type twice for the same offence.

According to the conclusion of the ECtHR, an administrative offence of "minor hooliganism" provided for by Art. 173 of the CUAO falls under the definition of "criminal procedure" in the meaning of Art. 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

In view of this, the SC Grand Chamber concluded that the court's application of an administrative penalty to the applicant for this offence was a punishment (conviction) in criminal proceedings, and the judgment of the Zarichnyi District Court of Sumy of 21 June 2007 was a sentence. Therefore, a criminal case initiated against the person must be closed, and all court judgments must be cancelled.

The Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 1-464/2008 (proceedings No. 13-17зво21) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/98235795.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - lpd.court.gov.ua/login.