ISSN 1993-0909 e-ISSN 2663-3116  
en English
Submit an article
Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine

Article

Download article

Admissibility of Evidence in the Practice of the Criminal Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court: Transition from Formal Legality to Procedural Integrity

Mykola Pohoretskyi

Received 11.02.2026, Revised 11.03.2026, Accepted 31.03.2026

Abstract

The article examines the evolution of approaches to the admissibility of evidence in the practice of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court. It is argued that contemporary case law is gradually moving away from a narrowly formal understanding of admissibility as mere technical compliance with procedural form and toward its interpretation as an instrument for ensuring the rule of law, fairness of criminal proceedings, procedural equality of the parties, and control over the limits of state interference with human rights. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of doctrinal positions expressed within the VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue, as well as to their correlation with the legal positions of the Criminal Cassation Court, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It is proved that the practice of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court is shaping a mixed model of admissibility of evidence, combining formal procedural requirements, constitutional criteria of legality of state power, and substantive standards of fairness of judicial proceedings. The article proposes to regard procedural integrity as an integrative criterion for assessing the admissibility of evidence, while procedural toxicity of evidence is conceptualized as a category that makes it possible to differentiate the consequences of procedural violations depending on their nature, gravity, and impact on primary and derivative evidentiary materials. It is concluded that the case law of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court requires doctrinal systematization through a transition from formal legality to a model of procedural integrity capable of ensuring a proper balance between the effectiveness of criminal prosecution and the real protection of human rights.

Keywords:

admissibility of evidence; Criminal Cassation Court; Supreme Court; procedural integrity; procedural toxicity of evidence; criminal proceedings; derivative evidence; digital evidence; fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine; fair trial; judicial control; rule of law

https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909-2026-33-1-267

Retrieved from Journal NALSU №1, 2026 year

Pages 267-302

References Suggested citation

References

[1] Bushchenko, A. (2026). Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Doctrine and law enforcement practice in search of a constructive dialogue. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 5–8). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[11] Vapniarchuk, V. (2026). Implementation of doctrinal concepts of inadmissibility of evidence in domestic criminal procedural legislation and in judicial practice: Analysis of the current state and outline of further steps. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 61–65). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[2] Hloviuk, I. (2026). Changing the model of admissibility of evidence: Why and for what purpose? In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 52–55). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[3] Hmyrko, V.P., & Shumylo, M.Ye. (2020). Resolving the issue of admissibility of evidence by the court: Is judicial correction of CPC norms possible? In Proceedings of the VIII International Scientific and Practical Conference “Malynovskyi Readings” (Ostroh, May 22, 2020) (pp. 136–139). Ostroh: National University of Ostroh Academy Publishing House.

[4] Zeikan, Ya. (n.d.). The ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court as an apple of discord. Retrieved from https://racurs.ua/ua/3041-postanova-vp-vs-yak-yabluko-rozbratu.html

[5] Kaplina, O. (2026). Literal interpretation of criminal procedural law as a risk of transforming the form of criminal proceedings into formalism. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 69–73). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[6] Krapyvin, Ye. (2021). On the inadmissibility of evidence collected “in violation of the rules of jurisdiction” – the Supreme Court’s position resembles the Donatist heresy. Retrieved from https://krapyvin.blogspot.com/2021/06/blog-post.html

[7] Nesinov, O. (n.d.). Position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: Bias in favor of the prosecution? Retrieved from https://justtalk.com.ua/post/pozitsiya-velikoi-palati-verhovnogo-sudu-uperedzhenist-na-korist-storoni-obvinuvachennya

[8] Petrenko, S. (n.d.). New position of the Supreme Court: Do all violations of the CPC result in inadmissibility of evidence? (A response to attorney Oleh Nesinov’s position). Retrieved from https://justtalk.com.ua/post/nova-pozitsiya-verhovnogo-sudu-chi-vsi-porushennya-kpk-mayut-naslidkom-nedopustimist-dokaziv-vidpovid-na-pozitsiyu-advokata-olega-nesinova

[9] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2025). Admissibility of evidence in criminal procedure and procedural integrity: Doctrine and practice (a comparative legal study). Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva, 1/2, 60–82. Retrieved from https://vkslaw.com.ua/index.php/journal/issue/view/37/1-2-2025-pdf

https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2025.1-2/22-59

[10] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2026). Procedural integrity and procedural toxicity of evidence: A contemporary interpretation of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine in the polylogue of scholarship and practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 18–30). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[101] Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2025). Judicial control in ensuring fair and admissible proof in the criminal procedure of Ukraine. Analitychno-porivnialne pravoznavstvo, 4(3), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2025.04.3.40 Retrieved from https://app-journal.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/42-2.pdf

[11] Supreme Court. (2022, November 21). Ruling in case No. 991/492/19, proceeding No. 51-491кмп21. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/107805010

[12] Supreme Court, Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation. (2021, October 27). Ruling in case No. 668/69/16-к. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/100734860

[13] Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. (2020, September 9). Ruling in case No. 1-27/10. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/91572019

[14] Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. (2022, August 31). Ruling in case No. 756/10060/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/106141457

[15] Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2019, October 8). Ruling in case No. 639/8329/14-к. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/85238666

[16] Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2020, April 14). Ruling in case No. 761/34909/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88904111

[17] Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2020, May 19). Ruling in case No. 490/10025/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89621459

[18] Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2018, September 25). Ruling in case No. 210/4412/15-к. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76859981

[19] Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2021, October 25). Ruling in case No. 159/1383/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/100579483

[20] Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2020, September 30). Ruling in case No. 563/1118/16-к. Retrieved from https://lpd.court.gov.ua/legal-position/864/document/896

[21] Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2020, December 1). Ruling in case No. 318/292/18. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/93438380

[22] Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2024, January 9). Ruling in case No. 941/1790/20. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/116325992

[23] Joint Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2021, May 24). Ruling in case No. 640/5023/19. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/97286253

[24] Joint Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court. (2021, February 22). Ruling in case No. 754/7061/15. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/95139651

[25] Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. (1996, November 1). On the application of the Constitution of Ukraine in the administration of justice: Resolution No. 9. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0009700-96

[26] Constitutional Court of Ukraine. (2004, November 2). Decision in the case upon the constitutional petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine concerning conformity of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) (case on the imposition by a court of a more lenient punishment): Decision No. 15-рп/2004. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v015p710-04

[27] European Court of Human Rights. (2019, April 16). Alakhverdyan v. Ukraine (Application No. 12224/09). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_e26

[28] European Court of Human Rights. (2018, May 22). Svetina v. Slovenia (Application No. 38059/13). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-183124%22]}

[29] European Court of Human Rights. (2020, January 9). Siyanko v. Ukraine (Application No. 52571/11). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_f06

[30] Serhieieva, D. B. (2015). Admissibility of evidence in theory and under the 2012 CPC. Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva, 3, 80–87. Retrieved from https://vkslaw.com.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/708/625

[31] Starenkyi, O. (2026). Problems of admissibility of evidence obtained from the Core International Crimes Evidence Database in criminal proceedings on core international crimes. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 105–110). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[32] Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court. (2021, February 19). Ruling in case No. 487/5684/19. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/95263495

[33] Supreme Court, First Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation. (2021, December 14). Ruling in case No. 756/10060/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/102551354

[34] Fomin, S. (2026). The imperativeness of criminal procedural law as the conceptual basis of the model of the institution of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 9–13). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[35] Khanin, S. (n.d.). Admissibility of evidence. Retrieved from https://pravo.ua/dopustymist-dokaziv-bloh-advokata-semena-khanina/

[36] Sharenko, S. (2026). Obvious inadmissibility of evidence: The dilemma of the judge’s inner conviction. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 48–51). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[37] Shumylo, M. Ye., Hmyrko, V., & Nedilko, Ya. (2026). Achieving doctrinal consistency in the interpretation of criminal judicial evidence as a conditio sine qua non for the correct resolution of the issue of admissibility of evidentiary materials of the prosecution. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 31–47). Kharkiv: Pravo.

[38] Shumylo, M.Ye., & Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2012). Evidence and proof. In O. M. Bandurka, Ye. M. Blazhivskyi, Ye. P. Burdol, et al. (Eds.), Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Scientific and practical commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 247–308). Kharkiv: Pravo. Retrieved from https://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/jspui/handle/123456789/20794

[39] Yanovska, O. (2026). The concept of admissibility of evidence: Between national guarantees and European standards. In O.V. Kaplina, V.V. Vapniarchuk, M.A. Pohoretskyi, A.R. Tumaniants, & M.Ye. Shumylo (Eds.), Criminal procedure: Modern dimension and prospective trends: VIII Kharkiv Criminal Procedure Polylogue. Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings: Between the imperativeness of law and procedural tolerance (Kharkiv, November 14, 2025) (pp. 14–17). Kharkiv: Pravo.

Suggested citation

Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2026). Admissibility of Evidence in the Practice of the Criminal Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court: Transition from Formal Legality to Procedural Integrity. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 33(1), 267-302. https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909-2026-33-1-267