International observers have expressed concerns regarding the impartiality of the court handling the Rotterdam Plus case. They noted that the presiding judge, in response to defense objections, has been voicing her own interpretations of the evidence and the prosecution’s logic, which some argue undermines the defense’s position.
The mission’s report states, “Any actions by the court that could be perceived as aimed at rectifying deficiencies in the prosecution’s case might create an impression of a violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings, equality of the parties, and judicial impartiality.”
According to the observers, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any ambiguities should be interpreted in favor of the defendants. They referenced the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which emphasizes that Article 6 §1 of the convention guarantees each party the right to conditions that do not create a substantial procedural imbalance compared to the opposing party.
The defense has indicated contradictions in the prosecution’s case, claiming that the meeting protocol provided by the prosecutor lacked proper identification details and that the coal pricing was calculated using incomparable metrics. Additionally, they pointed out discrepancies between the prosecutor’s statements made during this session and their previous assertions.
Context
- The Rotterdam Plus formula was used to calculate the cost of coal for forecasting electricity prices exclusively for industrial consumers from 2016 to 2019. It involved adding transportation costs for coal from the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp hubs. The formula was abolished on July 1, 2019, with the introduction of the electricity market, following an ongoing criminal investigation that began in 2017.
- In July, international observers highlighted a number of violations in the investigation of the Rotterdam Plus case that raise doubts about the objectivity and transparency of the inquiry.
