En
Submit your application

Supreme Court of Ukraine on the disclosure of classified materials in criminal cases

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the criminal case No. 751/7557/15-k and on January 16, 2019 published a resolution that regulated the application the Art. 290th Criminal Code.

It is important that the Supreme Court decided not to deviate from the existing legal conclusion regulating the procedural aspects of opening materials to the other side of the proceedings.

Case details

Thus, the reason for the formation of a legal conclusion was the criminal proceedings on cassation complaints of a human rights activist in the interests of convicted persons against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appeal.

The question was considered, can the classified materials of the investigation be opened to the defense and recognized as evidence?

The consideration resulted in a legal opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine prohibiting the recognition of classified investigation materials open to the defense side as evidence.

The BC-SCU substantiated its conclusion by the fact that, at the request of the person, the procedural documents that are the grounds for conducting the NDDR (not opened to the defense in accordance with Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to their absence from the prosecution or due to the fact that they were classified in the moment the prosecution opens the materials of criminal proceedings) may be opened to the other side, but …

As evidence, information from these materials of criminal proceedings cannot be accepted by the court, because…

“Non-disclosure of materials by the parties to each other under the procedure of Art. 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the completion of the pre-trial investigation and additional materials received before (during) the trial of the case, is the basis for recognizing the information from these materials as inadmissible as evidence”.

The Cassation Criminal Court (collegium of judges) established a rule according to which:

  •  procedural documentation (the basis for conducting covert investigative and search activities) may be opened during the trial in the first and appeal instances, if it was not opened to the defense side during the filing of the indictment with the court for the reasons mentioned above;
  • disclosure to a human rights defender of information (the results of the NDDR) from this documentation cannot serve as a source of evidence admissible in court under these circumstances in accordance with the requirements of Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

So, it was decided that the lawyer conducting the criminal case could find out the content of the documents classified as “secret”, but he had no right to use it to prove in the trial!

 

12.02.2019

27

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
Are you familiar with the terms of the loan? That means you was not be deceived by the bank!

The borrower, who has familiarized himself with the terms of the lending, cannot accuse the bank of fraud or must prove his accusation in court, if it came to this. Establishes this, shall we say, dogma, the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 569/423/15-c of 03/05/18 and the older conclusion […]

It is possible to change the amount of recoverable legal aid costs

On December 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its conclusion in case No. 910/4881/18, published a legal opinion on the collection and determination of the amount of legal aid costs. So, in the course of this trial, the question arose that the amount of UAH 337,665.08 of expenses for legal assistance, spent by […]

To Guarantors! Artificial insolvency is impossible!

A case won in court does not mean that the lender will automatically receive what the borrower owes him! One of the “worked out” schemes among the bank’s borrowers is that they alienate property at the stage of judicial review or during the period when the court decision comes into force. The main thing in […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court: Responsibility of a bona fide purchaser

Due to the “carelessness” of the notary, the person almost lost the housing they bought for their own money! The APU “saved” him. Case No. 645/4220/16-ts of 13.11.2019 The citizen applied to the court with a claim against two persons and a third party – a notary, demanding the invalidation of the sale and purchase […]

On “saving” confiscated housing by donating it to relatives

One of the “working” options for “saving” real estate from confiscation / foreclosure to pay off debts, the people have always considered the option of donating it to relatives through drawing up a donation agreement, the fictitiousness of which is quite difficult to dispute. Difficult, but possible! The Supreme Court of Ukraine published another legal […]

The new owner is not entitled to evict the debtor from mortgage housing

The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the case on the eviction of the former owner (debtor of the bank) from the apartment purchased (by the new owner). A relevant legal conclusion has been published, informative for real estate buyers and bank borrowers. Thus, a new non-owner who has bought “risky” real estate from a mortgagee […]