If public calls to alter the borders of Ukraine, made at different times, relate to different events and contexts, each containing all the elements of the offence under Article 110 of the Criminal Code, they constitute repeated criminal offences

In this criminal proceeding, the courts of previous instances found the defendant guilty and convicted her under parts 1 and 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for making, via her “VKontakte” social media page, public calls on December 11, 2022, and on January 8 and 10, 2023, to commit deliberate acts aimed at altering the borders of Ukraine in violation of the procedure established by the Constitution of Ukraine. In the cassation appeal, the defence attorney argued that the defendant’s actions had been incorrectly qualified under part 2 of Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, specifically regarding the aggravating circumstance of “repeated commission”.  

Upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, the Supreme Court stated that combining identical acts with a single criminal intent means that before committing the first of a series of identical acts, a person realises that in order to implement his or her criminal intent, it is necessary to commit several such acts, each of which looks like a separate independent criminal offence and is aimed at implementing this intent, which has signs of a single intent within the framework of a continuing crime. However, when each of the identical criminal offences has its own subjective element - that is, an independent intent (the mental attitude toward each specific act) that arises anew before committing each separate crime - such acts constitute a repetition of criminal offences.

According to Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a criminal offence is considered complete from the moment any act provided for in this article is committed, including public calls to perform actions aimed at changing Ukraine’s borders.

The Supreme Court took into account that the defendant’s comments, depending on the circumstances, were different each time, referred to separate events connected with the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine (the first concerned Soledar, the second - monuments, and the third - the Dnipropetrovsk region). Each of these situational comments, identified as public calls, was not logically related to the others, had a distinct context and time interval (the first on December 11, 2022, the second on January 8, and the third on January 10, 2023). At the same time, each call contained all the elements of the offence defined in Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Thus, the lower courts reasonably concluded that the defendant was proven guilty of repeatedly making public calls to commit deliberate acts aimed at changing the borders of Ukraine, which were not united by a single criminal intent.

Resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated September 17, 2025, in case No. 212/4527/23 (proceeding No. 51-1894км25) – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/130409838.

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