The bill aims to amend Part 11 of Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Currently, Part 11 of Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine reads as follows:

A court ruling to dismiss criminal proceedings may be appealed (paragraph 11 of Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine).

This bill proposes to supplement the aforementioned provision as follows:

A court ruling to dismiss criminal proceedings, as well as a ruling refusing to dismiss criminal proceedings, may be appealed.

Positive consequences:

Currently, a ruling refusing to dismiss criminal proceedings is not subject to a separate appeal; instead, objections to it may be included in an appeal against the court’s verdict.

In other words, the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of a separate appeal against a court ruling denying a motion to dismiss criminal proceedings prior to the adoption of a final decision following the trial in the court of first instance.

Appealing rulings denying the closure of criminal proceedings solely by raising objections to such rulings within the framework of an appeal against the court’s verdict is not an effective legal remedy due to the inability to ensure timely consideration of the appeal, which is inconsistent with the objective of criminal proceedings to ensure a speedy trial, since a significant amount of time (more than several years) may elapse between the time the court of first instance issues a ruling refusing to dismiss criminal proceedings and the time the appellate court renders its decision.

Thus, by a ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeals in Case No. 696/914/18 dated November 18, 2021, the appeals filed by the prosecutor and the defense attorney were partially granted, the defense attorney’s motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings was granted, the judgment of the court of first instance was overturned, and the criminal proceedings were entered into the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations under No. 12018250000000124 dated June 14, 2018, and closed pursuant to paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, the indictment was approved and forwarded to the court on August 29, 2018, and the decision to close the criminal proceedings was issued on November 18, 2021—that is, three years later. In this regard, the court noted: “Conducting court proceedings when there are grounds for closing the criminal proceedings in accordance with paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine constitutes a material violation of the requirements of criminal procedural law, which entails the unconditional reversal of the court decision adopted as a result of such judicial proceedings.”

By a ruling of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court in Case No. 711/3111/19 dated September 15, 2021, the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel were partially granted, The judgment of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated February 19, 2021, and the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated April 21, 2021, were set aside, the criminal proceedings registered in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations under No. 52018000000000797 were closed pursuant to paragraph 10 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, the indictment was submitted to the court on April 5, 2019; however, the decision to close the criminal proceedings was issued by the Supreme Court on April 21, 2021—that is, two years later. Furthermore, in the aforementioned court decision, the court noted that “based on the principles of legality and adherence to reasonable time limits in the case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against a person for whom grounds for closing the criminal proceedings have been established and confirmed, in the Court’s opinion, contradicts these principles; therefore, the Court does not review the other arguments in the defense’s cassation appeals, including those regarding the admissibility of evidence in the criminal proceedings.” Thus, the individual remained a defendant for two years until the court of cassation issued a decision to dismiss the criminal proceedings, which in turn indicates a violation of the principles of legality and adherence to reasonable time limits in the case.

These examples confirm the ineffectiveness of the mechanism for appealing court decisions denying the dismissal of criminal proceedings, due to the long period of time that elapsed between the filing of the motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings and the actual rendering of the decision. The requirement to go through the appellate review stage of the verdict in order to decide on the closure of criminal proceedings also indicates an inefficient use of court resources. The ability to appeal a court decision refusing to dismiss criminal proceedings while the case is pending before the court of first instance would expedite the consideration of such matters and reduce the burden on the courts.

A court decision to dismiss criminal proceedings takes on the characteristics of a final judgment that concludes the case. If the possibility of appealing a court decision denying a motion to dismiss criminal proceedings were ensured, the appellate court, if there are sufficient grounds, would be authorized to overturn such a decision by the court of first instance and, accordingly, could issue a decision to dismiss the criminal proceedings—that is, to issue a judicial decision that would conclude the case. That is precisely why the prohibition on appealing a court decision denying a motion to dismiss criminal proceedings contradicts paragraph 8 of part two of Article 129 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

At the same time, it logically follows that appeals challenging rulings to close criminal proceedings are filed by the prosecution as well as by the victims. Such a privileged position of the prosecution compared to the defense in the context of the right to appeal is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of the rule of law, contradicts such a fundamental principle of judicial proceedings as the equality of all participants in the judicial process before the law and the court, and violates the constitutional right to judicial protection, a component of which is the right to appeal a court decision.

In effect, the prosecution is granted the opportunity to appeal a court decision to dismiss criminal proceedings, while the defense is deprived of the opportunity to appeal a court decision denying the dismissal of criminal proceedings, which indicates the absence of a uniform legal framework for the prosecution and the defense regarding the resolution of the issue of dismissing criminal proceedings.

That is, under current law, the prosecution may present its position before courts at two levels: the court of first instance and the appellate court (if the court of first instance issues a ruling granting the defense’s motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings). At the same time, the defense may present its position only before the court of first instance if that court denies the motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings.

Consequently, the provision of Part 11 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the inability to appeal a ruling by the court of first instance denying the dismissal of criminal proceedings constitutes a restriction on the constitutional right to judicial protection in that it denies the defense—unlike the prosecution—the opportunity to seek appellate review of such a matter and, as a result, conflicts with the provisions of Article 8, Part 1, and Article 55, and subparagraphs 1), 3), and 8) of Part 2 of Article 129 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

Therefore, Bill No. 14084 of September 29, 2025, aims to amend the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine to provide for the possibility of appealing rulings denying the dismissal of criminal proceedings.

Author: Viktoria Zagoruy, Attorney at Law, Barristers Law Firm