The Court of Appeal of Rovno Oblast, Ukraine, revoked an administrative penalty in a case of vape and liquid sales, ruling that the evidence was insufficient and the procedure was inappropriate. The original judgment failed to prove the violation of the law by the person involved under the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and ultimately, the fine was cancelled.
Key points:
- A person involved in the case in Ukraine was fined by the court of first instance for being accused of violating the regulations on the sale of vape liquid.
- The Rovno State Court of Appeals held that the evidence in the case was insufficient and there were flaws in the procedural handling during the initial trial, ultimately revoking the original judgment.
- The judgment particularly emphasizes the principle of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in administrative law enforcement and the significance of the legality of evidence.
A case of Vape retail violation in Ukraine has been dismissed
According to a report by Sud on May 12th, the Appeal Court of Rovno Oblast, Ukraine, disclosed that an administrative violation case involving the sale of vape liquid was overturned due to insufficient evidence and procedural flaws.
In the original case, a salesperson working at a shopping mall in the city of Rivne was accused of violating Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the “Ukrainian Law on the Administration of the Circulation of Alcohol, Tobacco Products, E-Liquid and Fuel”, as well as constituting an administrative violation as defined in Article 156, Paragraph 1 of the “Ukrainian Code of Administrative Violations”. The court of first instance ruled that the salesperson had illegally sold e-liquid products for vapes and imposed a fine of 3,400 hryvnias (82 US dollars).
However, the agent lawyer of the salesperson involved in the case filed an appeal. After review, the appellate court pointed out that the administrative violation report of the original case did not clearly state the specific nature of the violation of the involved act. The report did not mention whether the e-liquid sold by the defendant violated the tax stamp mark (i.e., it did not indicate whether the consumption tax stamp was missing or forged), which is a key component of the content regulated by Article 156.
Flawed procedures and insufficient evidence as the main causes
At the same time, by relevant laws and regulations, the court has no right to arbitrarily rewrite the facts listed in the case report, redefine the nature of the act, or collect evidence on its own and replace the role of the prosecution. Otherwise, it will violate the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding an independent judiciary. In other words, an administrative violation report in itself is not sufficient to constitute a single and valid piece of evidence. It must be supported by other materials and should be verified by the court as having no reasonable doubts.
During the trial, it was also found that the court of first instance failed to fully ascertain the facts and did not conduct sufficient investigations into key circumstances, violating the principle of “comprehensive, objective and fair” trial, which ultimately led to the incorrect determination of the facts. Given the above factors, the Rovno State Court of Appeals held that the original conclusion that the defendant had committed an illegal act lacked legal evidence support and revoked the original penalty decision.
