If a person refuses to receive a written notice of suspicion, the prosecution may record the delivery on video, which constitutes sufficient proof of proper notification – SC CrimCC

In this criminal proceeding, the lower courts found the accused guilty under Part 2 of Article 190, Part 5 of Article 27 in conjunction with Part 3 of Article 358, and Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In the cassation appeal, the defence argued that the lower courts had failed to properly assess the fact that the accused had not been served with a written notice of suspicion, thereby violating Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC), and claimed that all obtained evidence was inadmissible. The defence also maintained that the notice of suspicion had been announced by the investigator in the absence of the defence counsel.

Upholding the decisions of the lower courts, the Supreme Court noted that the provisions of the criminal procedure law regulating the procedure for notifying a participant in the proceedings of a procedural action or decision — including the delivery of a written notice of suspicion — are aimed at ensuring that the addressee of such a notice is properly informed of the procedural act or decision. The legislator has also provided safeguards that allow, on the one hand, the fixation of the person’s refusal to receive the notice and, on the other hand, confirmation that the person has in fact been informed. One such means of notification is video recording of the procedural action.

Therefore, if a person refuses to accept a written notice of suspicion, the prosecution may record the delivery on video, and such a video recording of the procedural action is sufficient to establish that the addressee was properly notified.

As established by the lower courts, on the day the notice of suspicion was issued, the investigator visited the convict’s place of residence and offered her to receive the written notice of suspicion together with an information sheet on her rights and obligations. The accused refused to accept the documents. The investigator then read aloud the contents of the documents while recording the action on video. According to the recording, the attesting witnesses introduced themselves, after which the investigator began reading the documents. The absence of a defence counsel during the delivery of the notice of suspicion does not affect the legality of this procedural action, as the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine contains no requirement for the mandatory participation of a defence counsel at this stage.

Resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 5 August 2025 in case No. 711/171/24 (proceeding No. 51-1367км25) – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129461749.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.