Leaving the victim's representative's application for videoconference participation unconsidered and hearing criminal proceedings in their absence constitutes a material breach of the CPC of Ukraine - SC CrimCC

In these criminal proceedings, the lower courts found the accused guilty and convicted him under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In her cassation appeal, the victim stated that her representative had submitted an application to the court requesting participation in the hearing of the case in the appellate instance via videoconference using his own technical means. However, the court did not consider this application and did not notify the victim’s representative of the outcome of its consideration.

When quashing the ruling of the appellate court and ordering a new hearing in the appellate instance, the Supreme Court stated that, in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of Article 58 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a victim’s representative enjoys the procedural rights of the victim whose interests he represents, except for those procedural rights whose exercise is carried out directly by the victim and cannot be delegated to a representative. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Part 3 of Article 56 and Article 58 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a victim’s representative has the right to participate in the court proceedings.

It is apparent from the materials of the criminal proceedings that the victim’s representative submitted an application to the appellate court requesting that his participation in the court hearing be ensured via videoconference using his own technical means. On the same day, the court received the application; however, before the start of the appellate hearing, it failed to resolve the victim’s representative’s application and did not issue a ruling on conducting remote court proceedings or on refusing to grant such an application.

During the playback of the audio recording of the court hearing in the appellate instance, it was established that the presiding judge informed the court that the victim had not appeared at the hearing, although she had been duly notified of the time and date of the hearing and had submitted no applications to the court. At the same time, the presiding judge did not ascertain the views on the possibility of hearing the case in the absence of the victim’s representative, did not mention the existence of his application for participation in the appellate hearing via videoconference, and the court did not resolve this application.

Resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 25 February 2026 in case No. 165/298/24 (proceedings No. 51-4679км25) — https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/134456433.  

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.