The same rule is defined in Part 1 of Art. 19 CPC of Ukraine (no one can be twice charged or punished for a criminal offense on which he was acquitted or convicted on the basis of a verdict of the court which became legally binding).
Similarly, it is worth recalling the provisions of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, according to which no one can be summoned to court for the second time or punished in a criminal proceeding under the jurisdiction of one and the same State for the offense for which he has been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and the criminal procedure of that State.
The Supreme Court clarified the content of this principle (which means "twice for the same offense"). Under the circumstances of the case, the decision of which was reviewed by the Supreme Court, the person was prosecuted under Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of the rules of road safety or the operation of transport by the person who manages the TK, which caused the injured to bodily harm of moderate severity).
The defender of the person sent a cassation appeal on the grounds that the convicted person had already been called for an administrative offense under art. 124 CUAO, and therefore the existence of a canceled ruling on the prosecution of the convict obliged the court of first instance to adopt an acquittal sentence or to close the criminal proceedings in connection with the absence of a criminal offense in its act.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed with such arguments, noting that Art. 124 CUAO provides for administrative liability for violations by road traffic participants of the Traffic rules, which caused damage to vehicles, cargo, highways, streets, railroads, road structures or other property. At the same time, Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine establishes responsibility for causing a victim of average severity of bodily harm.
Therefore, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, in resolving the question whether there is a violation of the principle of "non bis in idem", that is, to be brought twice to legal liability, in particular, for the commission of an administrative offense stipulated in art. 124 CUAO and for committing a criminal offense provided for in Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine should be borne in mind that criminal proceedings concern exactly the consequences of causing the average gravity of bodily harm, which is not provided for in the norm of art. 124 CUAO, and therefore there is no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Decree of the Supreme Court of 02.10.2018 in the case № 493/1096/15-k).
