.jpg)
Circumstances of the case: according to the decision of the local court, the criminal proceedings against PERSON_1 were closed in connection with the victim's refusal to support the prosecution under Part 1 of Art. 129 of the Criminal Code. By making such a decision, the court of first instance did not decide the issue of distribution of costs, motivating it by the fact that the guilty verdict was not passed in this criminal proceeding, and therefore there are no grounds for charging the accused with court costs.
The appellate court changed the decision of the court of first instance, in particular, in the part of the resolution of procedural costs. Thus, according to the decision of the appeals court, the prosecutor's appeal was satisfied, and the state was charged with the procedural expenses for carrying out explosive technical examinations and forensic examinations of weapons in the amount of UAH 6,701.45.
In the cassation appeal, the prosecutor, referring to the opinion of the Supreme Court in case No. 598/1781/17, believes that when the criminal proceedings are closed, court costs should be recovered from the accused person.
The position of the CCS: the decision of the courts of previous instances was left unchanged.
Justification of the position of the CCS: the panel of judges of the CCS agrees with the decision of the appellate court.
Procedural costs arise and are related to the implementation of criminal proceedings, and are material costs of pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor's office, the court and other participants in criminal proceedings.
The panel of judges of the CCS believes that the issue of the distribution of court costs should be decided individually in each criminal proceeding, taking into account all the circumstances of the occurrence of such costs, the reasons for the termination of criminal proceedings and court proceedings.
Taking into account the specific circumstances of this criminal proceeding, the panel of judges of the CCS comes to the conviction that all procedural costs incurred by the pre-trial investigation body and related to the investigation of the criminal proceeding are borne by the state, since the victim in the case of private prosecution refused the accusation, and the court in in this case, he was obliged to close the criminal proceedings, which led to the loss of PERSON_1's status as an accused.
The prosecutor's reference to the fact that the appellate court did not take into account the position of the Supreme Court, set out in the decision of 17.06.2020 in case No. 598/1781/17, does not deserve attention, since the appellate court corrected the decision of the district court, carried out the allocation of costs and followed the form of the procedural decision. Attribution of such costs to the account of the state, and not to the individual in this criminal proceeding, is justified.
You can read more about the text of the resolution dated November 9, 2021 in case #149/83/21 (proceedings #51-4371км21) at the link https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/101029203 .