During his presentation, Mr. Ponomarenko focused on the practical application of Parts 1, 9, and 12 of Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine—provisions that directly define the procedure for notifying the completion of a pretrial investigation, confirming the disclosure of case materials, and the consequences of noncompliance with these requirements for the admissibility of evidence.
The speaker emphasized that in criminal proceedings, the defense can effectively choose between two strategies: “to go for a sprint or a marathon.” According to the attorney, a “sprint” is a strategy to terminate criminal proceedings as early as the preparatory court hearing stage, specifically by invoking paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine in cases where pretrial investigation deadlines have been missed. In contrast, the “marathon” is a protracted court process that may result in an acquittal after years of litigation.
During his presentation, Denys Ponomarenko provided a detailed analysis of the current practice of the Supreme Court regarding the proper notification of the defense of the completion of the pretrial investigation and the disclosure of the materials of the criminal proceedings. In particular, he cited examples of court decisions in which the Supreme Court ruled that notifications sent via telephone message, WhatsApp, Telegram, Viber, email, regular mail, or courier service were improper in the absence of proper confirmation that the defense had received the notification.
The speaker paid special attention to the Supreme Court’s ruling dated February 21, 2023, in which the court concluded that a telephone message and screenshots of calls, without proper documentation of the conversation’s content, do not confirm that the defense counsel was notified of the completion of the pretrial investigation. The Supreme Court applied a similar approach to notifications sent via messaging apps and email, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove not only that the notification was sent but also that it was received by the appropriate person and the time of such receipt.
Denis Ponomarenko also drew attention to the tactical significance of Parts 9 and 12 of Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. In particular, he discussed the need to properly document the list of materials disclosed to the defense, as a failure to specify the documents may later raise questions regarding the admissibility of such evidence in court.
A separate section of the presentation was devoted to Denis Ponomarenko’s own legal practice. Using examples from relevant cases, the attorney demonstrated how procedural violations during the disclosure of materials in criminal proceedings can affect the duration of the pretrial investigation, the admissibility of evidence, and the prospects for closing the criminal proceedings or securing an acquittal.
