One of the ways to ensure the unity and stability of court practice in criminal proceedings is to refer a case to the joint and Grand Chambers of the Supreme Court. In this context, a need arises for an in-depth scientific research into and reflection on the Supreme Court’s practice since the last novelization of Chapter 34 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine).

The purpose of this article is to study the reasoning of the rulings passed by the panels of the court chambers of the Criminal Court of Cassation by which a criminal case is referred for consideration to the joint chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, and also that of the judgments of the joint and the Grand Chambers of the Supreme Court following results of cassation proceedings.

The Supreme Court did not clarify the essence of the categories “such legal relations” and “exclusive legal problem”, thus significantly complicating its task of ensuring the unity and stability of court practice. Most of the rulings by which a criminal case is referred for consideration to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court following results of cassation proceedings contain partial reasoning. This partial nature of the reasoning of the rulings passed by the judicial panels of the court chambers of the Criminal Court of Cassation by which a criminal case is referred to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court manifests itself in the fact that they do not always offer a sufficient set of convincing arguments to justify that a basis for such a decision exists. Partial relevance of the arguments in the rulings passed by the panels of the court chambers of the Criminal Court of Cassation referring a criminal case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court means that the reasoning of some of these decisions, along with appropriate means of argumentation, uses the theses which have no concern with the legal situation considered by the court of cassation. Partial reasoning of the rulings passed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court manifests itself by creating the situation where, while recognizing the very fact of existing problematic theoretical and application issues which need to be resolved at the level of the joint and the Grand Chambers of the Supreme Court, the judgment following the results of cassation proceedings formulates a legal position in respect of resolving only one of them. And other issues remain unresolved. In general, judgments by the Supreme Court on criminal case referral to the joint and the Grand Chambers have a rather high degree of reasoning, but it would be advisable to improve some aspects thereof. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court should explain the essence of the categories “such legal relations” and “exceptional legal problem”.

Rulings passed by judicial panels of the court chambers of the Criminal Court of Cassation on criminal case referral to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court should give more convincing arguments to justify that there exists the ground for such a decision, and should use only relevant argumentation means in their rationale part. Before making a decision on referring a criminal case to the joint chamber of this court, the panels of judges of the court chambers of the Criminal Court of Cassation should check whether the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has already formulated an opinion regarding such a legal situation. In its decisions following cassation proceedings, it would be reasonable for the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court to formulate a legal position on all problematic theoretical and application issues which need to be resolved at the level of the joint and the Grand Chambers of the Supreme Court, using its own arguments in support thereof.