How to file a cassation appeal in a criminal case

When this is needed

After an appeal in a crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ing from Lviv or the sur­round­ing region, the next step cannot be decided merely because the de­ci­sion men­tions “cas­sa­tion.” First iden­ti­fy the exact de­ci­sion, whether Article 424 of the CPC allows cas­sa­tion review, and whether the ap­pli­cant has stand­ing under Article 425. If the case is still at the pre­ced­ing stage, see the crim­i­nal appeal guide.

For a Lviv Court of Appeal de­ci­sion, compare the details in the full text with the hearing notice. If a dif­fer­ent ap­pel­late court handled the case under special ju­ris­dic­tion, use the actual de­ci­sion rather than the par­tic­i­pant’s address to iden­ti­fy the court.

What deadline or procedure applies

Article 426(2) of the CPC allows three months from pro­nounce­ment of the ap­pel­late de­ci­sion. There is a spe­cif­ic ex­cep­tion for a con­vict­ed person in custody: the three months begin when a copy is served on that person. Keep proof of the in­sti­tu­tion’s service date; a later date when another par­tic­i­pant read the de­ci­sion is not the same ex­cep­tion.

Article 115 of the CPC ex­cludes the event day from the running period and ends a monthly period on the cor­re­spond­ing date in its final month. If that date does not exist, use the last day of the month. A final non-working day moves to the next working day. The cas­sa­tion dead­line cal­cu­la­tor gives an es­ti­mate, but hol­i­days, special non-working days, court hours, and ad­mis­si­bil­i­ty require sep­a­rate checks.

Suppose a con­vict­ed person held in custody in a Lviv region case re­ceived a copy on 31 July 2026. Three months later the cor­re­spond­ing date is Sat­ur­day, 31 October 2026; under an or­di­nary working sched­ule, the pre­lim­i­nary final day is Monday, 2 No­vem­ber 2026. This ed­u­ca­tion­al example does not replace check­ing the records and actual cal­en­dar.

How to proceed step by step

Collect the local and ap­pel­late court de­ci­sions, proof of pro­nounce­ment, and the appeal ma­te­ri­als. If the con­vict­ed person is in custody, ask the in­sti­tu­tion for proof of the day the copy was served. Check whether the date on the doc­u­ment, the pro­nounce­ment date, and the service date differ. Pro­nounce­ment con­trols the general branch.

Sep­a­rate legal ar­gu­ments from another dispute about the facts. Iden­ti­fy the rule the court applied in­cor­rect­ly or a sub­stan­tial pro­ce­dur­al vi­o­la­tion, point to the rel­e­vant part of the record, and explain its effect on the de­ci­sion. Article 427 of the CPC re­quires spe­cif­ic in­for­ma­tion about the de­ci­sion, ap­pli­cant, re­quests, and grounds.

File the cas­sa­tion appeal di­rect­ly with the cas­sa­tion court. Check the sig­na­ture, au­thor­i­ty, copies, at­tach­ments, and de­liv­ery method before sending it. If a person in custody submits it through the in­sti­tu­tion ad­min­is­tra­tion, proof of the han­dover date will help es­tab­lish timely filing.

What to check before filing

Make sure the cal­cu­la­tor used the legally rel­e­vant start­ing event rather than a con­ve­nient later date. Check the re­sult­ing end date against the cal­en­dar, court hours, and actual filing route. A postal receipt or elec­tron­ic con­fir­ma­tion must show a com­plet­ed filing within the dead­line.

If the dead­line is dis­put­ed or has expired, prepare a sep­a­rate restora­tion motion with a con­sis­tent chronol­o­gy and sup­port­ing ev­i­dence. Ar­ti­cles 117 and 615 of the CPC may matter in spe­cif­ic cir­cum­stances, but the de­c­la­ra­tion of martial law by itself does not prove that filing was im­pos­si­ble.

When to consult a lawyer

Legal review is es­pe­cial­ly useful when someone is in custody, the file lacks proof of service, the de­ci­sion may be in­el­i­gi­ble for cas­sa­tion, or the final day is near. In a Lviv pro­ceed­ing, counsel can rec­on­cile the local and ap­pel­late court doc­u­ments, iden­ti­fy an ad­mis­si­ble legal ground, and review proof of filing with the Supreme Court. After do­mes­tic reme­dies, assess the pos­si­bil­i­ty of an ECHR ap­pli­ca­tion sep­a­rate­ly; the cas­sa­tion cal­en­dar does not au­to­mat­i­cal­ly set its dead­line.