Does the mobilization of a lawyer violate the human right to defense - conclusion of the Supreme Court

Article 335 of the CPC provides for the suspension of court proceedings only in cases where the accused was called up for military service during mobilization. However, this provision does not apply to the mobilization of a defense counsel.

This was pointed out by the Criminal Court of Cassation in case No. 127/2822/18, when it examined the issue of violation of the right to defense as a result of the replacement of defense counsel. The decision of 25.03.2025 was published in the Unified state register of court decisions.

The lawyer who provided defense in the criminal proceedings was mobilized to the Armed Forces of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. In early May, the court gave the defendant time (about a month) to conclude an agreement with another defense lawyer or to appoint a defense lawyer through the Free Legal Aid Center. However, he did not use this opportunity.

Then, by court order, he was assigned a defense counsel, who defended the defendant until the court was removed to the conference room.

Subsequently, the verdict was appealed on several grounds in appeal and cassation.

When filing the cassation appeal, the defense party, in particular, referred to the fact that the court found the person guilty in violation of his right to defense. After all, the court had unreasonably replaced the convict's lawyer.

However, the high judges, having analyzed the circumstances of the case, concluded that the appointment of a defense counsel from the Regional Center for Free Secondary Legal Aid, who had directly participated in court hearings during the trial, complied with the requirements of the law.

In view of this, the Court rejected this argument of the defense.