“The judicial practice of Vax demonstrates the tendency to independently interpret the norms of criminal procedural legislation. This can be considered as an attempt to form new approaches to law enforcement, however, there is a risk of selective application of procedural norms, which undermines the equality of the parties in the trial,” Karpovets emphasized.
According to her, the court introduced new procedural mechanisms that are not provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) in the Rotterdam Plus case.
“For example, in the“ Rotterdam Plus ”case, the court set the procedural deadlines to submit applications for the return of the indictment and objections to them at the stage of the preparatory meeting, although the current legislation does not contain such requirements. This means that the court actually creates new procedural mechanisms that may vary depending on the circumstances of the case,” the lawyer said.
In the same case, the Karpovets emphasized, the prosecutor was allowed to submit additions to objections after the deadline, while the defense party was denied a similar situation. This practice can lead to the selective application of the norms, which questiones the principle of equality of the parties in the trial.
“Another alarming signal was the ignorant of the Vax of key procedural violations in the same case” Rotterdam Plus “, which in other industries would be an unconditional basis for the return of the indictment,” the lawyer wrote.
The expert warned that such approaches can create a dangerous precedent, when procedural guarantees for the side of protection become unstable, and this may undermine confidence in the judicial system.
