A person has the right to appeal a sentence if it indicates that this particular person took part in a criminal organization.Such a conclusion was made by the Supreme Court in the decision on the case.

According to the requirements of Article 370 of the CPC, the decision of the Court of Appeal must be lawful, substantiated and motivated.

Article 24 of the CCP provides that everyone is guaranteed the right to appeal against procedural decisions, actions or inaction of the court, investigator of a judge, prosecutor, investigator, as well as a review of a sentence, a court order regarding the rights, freedoms or interests of a person, a higher level court in the procedure provided for by this Code, regardless of whether such person participated in the trial.

In addition to the norms of Article 7, Part 6 of Article 9, Articles 1 and 2 of Article 24, part 4 of Article 394 of the CPC, which guarantee access to justice, this fundamental principle of the rule of law

also ensures the Constitution (Part 2 of Article 55, Clause 8, Part 3, Art. 129).

The act of the highest legal force guarantees the exercise of the right to appeal in a wider sense than in Chapter 30 of the CCP, corresponds to the provisions of Article 24 of the CPC and broadens the circle of participants in the trial, which ensures the constitutional right to appeal court decisions.

The official interpretation of the constitutional provisions is carried out by the Constitutional Court, which in a number of its decisions expressed its position on the right to appeal judicial decisions and access to justice, according to which everyone is guaranteed the protection of rights and freedoms in court; the court can not refuse justice if the person considers that his rights and freedoms are violated or violated, obstacles to their realization have been created or created or other restrictions of rights and freedoms are in place; the refusal of the court to accept lawsuits and other applications, complaints, executed in accordance with the current legislation, is a violation of the right to judicial protection, which according to Article 64 of the Constitution can not be restricted (paragraph 1, 2 of the operative part of the decision of December 25, 1997, No. 9 -zp, paragraph 7 of clause 3 of the reasoning part of the decision dated April 25, 2012 №11-рп / 2012).

The absence in the sentence of an indication of the name of a particular person, a pre-trial investigation of which is carried out in another criminal proceeding, which occupy the corresponding position, if the reference to such an official in the sentence does not indicate that it is impossible to identify by position, period of work and functions that it were carried out.

In such circumstances, a sentence against another person concerns the interests of another person to the extent that it gives him, in accordance with Part 2 of Article 24 of the CCP, the right to appeal him to the higher courts. This verdict unequivocally confirms its participation in a criminal organization and thus creates prudicency and, contrary to the presumption of innocence, establishes its guilt in committing a crime.

Such a position of the Court is consistent with the legal opinion of the SCU, set forth in the decision of March 3, 2016 in the case No. 5-347x15, that the constitutional principle of ensuring the appeal and cassation appeal of a court decision guarantees the right to apply to the court with a complaint in an appeal or cassation procedure, which should be implemented, except for the prohibition established by law for such an appeal.

Moreover, the absence of "other persons" in the exhaustive list of subjects of appeal, provided for in Article 394 of the CPC, provided that the court decision concerns their rights, freedoms and interests, is not an obstacle to access to justice and to appeal to a higher instance court stipulated Part 2 of Article 24 of the CPC.

Therefore, when deciding whether there are grounds for challenging a court decision to a higher level court by a particular person, regardless of whether such a person participated in the trial, the key is to find out if this decision is in fact the interests of a particular person.