The Supreme Court explained when the court's refusal to satisfy the defendant's motion to disqualify the defense attorney is not a violation of the right to defense
The court's refusal to satisfy the defendant's motion to disqualify the defense attorney is not a violation of the right to defense if the defense attorney actively exercised his powers during the trial. This conclusion was made by the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in case No. 354/1478/24.
Positions of the courts of first and appellate instances
The courts of previous instances found the defendant guilty and sentenced him under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code.
In the cassation appeal, the convicted person stated that the local court, contrary to Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, refused to change the defense attorney, and the appellate court, violating the provisions of Articles 94, 404, 405-419 of the Criminal Procedure Code, noted that the case materials do not contain evidence of violations of the right to defense.
Position of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court
The decisions of the courts of previous instances were left unchanged.
The panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court indicated that the case materials show that the local court considered the convicted person's motion to disqualify the defense attorney and refused to satisfy it by ruling, sufficiently motivating the decision made.
The appellate court examined the convicted person's arguments about the violation of his rights in connection with the refusal to change the defense attorney and reasonably found no violations committed by the local court, justifiably noting that the defense attorney actively participated in the trial, filed motions, expressed his position, questioned witnesses, and appealed decisions regarding the preventive measure concerning the defendant.
It should be noted that the same defense attorney also participated in the consideration of the case by the cassation court, and the convicted person did not file any motions or statements regarding his disqualification or replacement. Considering the above, the panel of judges of the Criminal Cassation Court does not see violations committed by the courts in the context of the mentioned arguments of the convicted person.
Details of the ruling of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 13.04.2026 in case No. 354/1478/24 (proceeding No. 51-4332km25) can be found at the link.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
