At the latest hearing in the case of MP Serhii Kuzminykh, who is charged with trading in influence, the defense is once again trying to drag out the proceedings.

Kuzminykh's defense counsel did not appear at the hearing — he explained his absence by his engagement at the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal and by the fact that the hearing had been scheduled at short notice.

Despite this, the panel of judges decided to continue the hearing without the defense counsel. The judges emphasized that such conduct by the defense is not an isolated occurrence and shows signs of systematic abuse of procedural rights. To ensure the continuity of the proceedings, the court will examine the prosecution's evidence now, and the defense counsel will have the opportunity to voice his comments and explanations later. The court also obliged the lawyer to provide proof of his presence at the other court hearing.

Kuzminykh claimed a violation of his right to a defense and asked for a free legal-aid lawyer to be appointed. However, the court denied this motion as ineffective and began reading out documents.

The limitation period for bringing him to criminal liability expires as soon as January 2027.

In the course of monitoring this case, we recorded the following main delaying tactics:

• filing unsubstantiated motions for recusal;
• scheduling and having the defense counsel participate in hearings at other courts (mostly in Zhytomyr Region) on the same dates as those at the HACC;
• the defense counsel filing motions for postponement a few days before or directly on the day of the hearing, often with contradictory or unreliable information about his commitments;
• numerous failures by the defendant Kuzminykh to appear at hearings without valid reasons (in particular, Kuzminykh repeatedly traveled outside Ukraine on business trips as an MP — to Spain, Lithuania, and so on).

In total, over the period of monitoring the case, more than 20 episodes of postponements being initiated and around 30 hearings that were disrupted or cut short prematurely have been recorded.

It is worth recalling that earlier, because of the systematic improper procedural conduct, the court had already applied a compelled appearance order and monetary penalties against Serhii Kuzminykh, and had even recovered his bail for the state, changing the preventive measure to round-the-clock house arrest. In addition, the HACC repeatedly filed complaints about the defense counsel's actions with the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar, but the local QDCB has so far seen no signs of misconduct in the lawyer's actions.

The court's decision to continue the hearing without the defense counsel is a forced measure in response to the systemic disregard of the defense's obligations and an attempt to prevent the limitation period in this case from expiring.