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 Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court: а Thorny Path from Formal to Legal Certainty

Mykola Ye. Shumylo , Valery P. Gmyrko , Valerii P. Hmyrko

Received 11.01.2026, Revised 11.02.2026, Accepted 31.03.2026

Abstract

Relevance of the study. The issues regarding the admissibility of evidence remain among the most controversial in modern criminal proceedings. The existence of contradictory judicial practice of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court indicates legal uncertainty in the interpretation of evidence and its admissibility both in legislation and in investigative and judicial practice. This requires immediate doctrinal and normative resolution. The purpose of the article is to clarify the reasons for the emergence and existence of double standards in the evaluation of evidence and to justify the necessity of transitioning from the investigative (formal) to the adversarial model of admissibility. Methods of analysis. The methodological basis of the study constitutes a complex of general scientific and special methods. The historical-legal method allowed analyzing the formation of norms and revealing the causes of disputes regarding the admissibility of evidence, which lie in the clash of different approaches. The formal-logical method was used to identify inconsistencies between articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding evidence and its admissibility. The comparative-legal method enabled the comparison of the Soviet theory of evidence with modern European standards, and the method of generalization allowed for the systematization of judicial practice and the formulation of unified conclusions. Results obtained. The authors proved that two incompatible concepts of evidence coexist in the national criminal procedural legislation. It is established that the automatic recognition of evidence as inadmissible due to minor procedural errors contradicts the rule of law. Practical value of the research lies in providing substantiated proposals for improving criminal procedural legislation aimed at establishing the court's exclusive authority in forming evidence. The authors have developed a system of criteria that will enable courts to evaluate procedural violations through the prism of the fairness of the proceedings, moving away from excessive formalism. 

Keywords:

admissibility of evidence; due process of law; right to evidence; adversarial standard of admissibility; substantial violation of human rights

https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909-2026-33-1-303

Retrieved from Journal NALSU №1, 2026 year

Pages 303-323

References Suggested citation

References

  1. Sushchenko, V. (2025). Reflections on the effectiveness of pre-trial investigation management. JustTalk. Retrieved from https://justtalk.com.ua/post/rozdumi-schodo-efektivnosti-upravlinnya-dosudovim-rozsliduvannyam [in Ukrainian].
  2. Hrodzynskyi, M.M. (1933). Evidence in the Soviet criminal process: Monograph (Vol. 1). Kharkiv: Legal Publishing House of the People's Commissariat of Justice of the Ukrainian SSR [in Ukrainian].
  3. Pohoretskyi, M.A. (2025). Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings and procedural integrity: Doctrines and practice (comparative legal research). Journal of Criminal Justice, 1-2, 29-38 [in Ukrainian]. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2025.1-2/22-59
  4. Zhogin, N.V. (Ed.). (1973). Theory of evidence in the Soviet criminal process (2nd ed.). [in Ukrainian].
  5. Cheltsov, M.A. (1951). Soviet criminal process (2nd ed.) [in Ukrainian].
  6. Strogovich, M.S. (1968). Course of Soviet criminal process (Vol. 1). [in Ukrainian].
  7. President of Ukraine. (2008). Decree on the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine dated February 15, 2008 "On the progress of reforming the criminal justice system and law enforcement agencies" (No. 311/2008). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/311/2008 [in Ukrainian].
  8. Hmyrko, V. P. (2002). Criminal procedural evidence: concept, structure, classification [Lecture notes]. Dnipropetrovsk: Academy of Customs Service of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].
  9. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2020, April 14). Resolution in case No. 761/34909/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88904111 [in Ukrainian].
  10. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2020, September 30). Resolution in case No. 563/1118/16-к. Retrieved from https://lpd.court.gov.ua/legal-position/864/document/896 [in Ukrainian].
  11. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2021, October 25). Resolution in case No. 159/1383/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/100579483 [in Ukrainian].
  12. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2024, January 9). Resolution in case No. 941/1790/20. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/116325992 [in Ukrainian].
  13. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2020, May 19). Resolution in case No. 490/10025/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89621459 [in Ukrainian].
  14. Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2021, February 22). Resolution in case No. 754/7061/15. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/95139651 [in Ukrainian].
  15. Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2021, May 24). Resolution in case No. 640/5023/19. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/97286253 [in Ukrainian].
  16. Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. (1996). Resolution "On the application of the Constitution of Ukraine in the administration of justice" (No. 9). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0009700-96 [in Ukrainian].
  17. Constitutional Court of Ukraine. (2004, November 2). Decision in the case regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (No. 15-rp/2004). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v015p710-04 [in Ukrainian].
  18. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2018, September 25). Resolution in case No. 210/4412/15-к. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76859981 [in Ukrainian].
  19. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2019, October 8). Resolution in case No. 639/8329/14-к. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/85238666 [in Ukrainian].
  20. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2020, December 1). Resolution in case No. 318/292/18. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/93438380 [in Ukrainian].
  21. 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 [in Ukrainian].
  22. Panel of Judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2021, December 14). Ruling in case No. 756/10060/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/102551354 [in Ukrainian].
  23. Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. (2022, August 31). Resolution in case No. 756/10060/17. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/106141457 [in Ukrainian].
  24. Zeikan, Ya. (2022). Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court as a bone of contention. Racurs. Retrieved from https://racurs.ua/ua/3041-postanova-vp-vs-yak-yabluko-rozbratu.html [in Ukrainian].
  25. Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court. (2024, July 16). Resolution in case No. 466/4520/21. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/120514041 [in Ukrainian].

Suggested citation

Mykola Ye. Shumylo , Valery P. Gmyrko, & Hmyrko, V.P. (2026). Admissibility of Evidence in the Practice of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court: а Thorny Path from Formal to Legal Certainty. Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 33(1), 303-323. https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909-2026-33-1-303