.jpg)
On January 17, 2022, the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court, after considering the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, agreed with the court of appeals, which upheld the acquittal of the driver who was accused of hooliganism. In this criminal proceeding, the courts came to the conclusion that the conflict between the two drivers arose out of a minor accident and was not aimed at a gross violation of public order due to clear disrespect for society. So there was no hooliganism in the driver's actions. (Decision of the CCS of the Supreme Court of January 17, 2022 in case No. 640/12288/17, proceedings No. 51-4288км21)
On January 19, the CCS of the Supreme Court referred the criminal proceedings regarding intentional grievous bodily harm to the Court of Appeal for a new review. In this case, the local court came to the conclusion that the accused caused serious bodily harm to the victim in connection with exceeding the limits of necessary defense. However, the appellate court, reclassifying his actions as intentional grievous bodily harm, did not refute the conclusion of the local court and did not verify the version of the defense that the accused was defending himself from the people who started the fight. (Decision of the CCS of the Supreme Court of January 19, 2022 in case No. 404/2605/20, proceedings No. 51-3472km21)
On January 20, the Administrative Court of Cassation as a member of the Supreme Court considered the case on the claim of PrJSC, which challenged the demand of the Advertising Department of the Kyiv City State Administration on the need to dismantle the billboard.
The plaintiff considered this requirement illegal, since the KMDA granted him a permit to place the structure in 2006, and subsequently extended its validity until the end of 2021.
The Supreme Court, relying on the legal positions in previously considered cases with similar legal relations, pointed out the legality of drawing up the contested demand for the dismantling of the billboard in view of the following.
The courts found out that when issuing the corresponding permit, the conditions were defined, from the moment of which the validity of the document depends on the period established in it. Namely, on the back of the permit it is indicated that the company undertakes, in particular, to comply with the normative legal acts that regulate activities in the field of outdoor advertising.
In 2017, by order of the KMDA, the Scheme for placement of ground advertising media throughout the city was approved. Therefore, the permit issued to the plaintiff ceased to be valid, and the advertising medium placed on its basis became arbitrarily placed. (Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine dated January 20, 2022 in case No. 826/4735/18).