On May 13, the defense in the Rotterdam+ case succeeded in having the judge recused from the proceedings. This was despite the fact that the judge reviewing the recusal request noted there were no objective circumstances that would unequivocally indicate bias or justify mandatory recusal.
The defense challenged the presiding judge in the case on the grounds that:
-
The lawyer was denied the opportunity to review the pre-trial investigation materials, as the court had refused to grant a motion for temporary access to them;
-
The panel of judges refused to grant the motion for the return of the indictments.
Interestingly, the judge who reviewed the recusal request noted that the second argument did not indicate judicial bias and, therefore, could not serve as a valid basis for removing the judge from the case.
The primary justification for the judge’s recusal was a reference to ECHR case law, which holds that even unfounded doubts about a court’s impartiality must be resolved in favor of recusal to safeguard the right to a fair trial.
The prosecutor opposed the recusal, arguing that it would further delay the proceedings. In response, the judge acknowledged that the case was already delayed.
As we previously reported, according to the investigation, from 2016 to 2019, a formula was used that included the cost of coal transportation from Rotterdam ports for TPPs, although this transportation did not actually occur. As a result, consumers overpaid, and DTEK received superprofits. The total losses are estimated at more than UAH 38 billion.