Will lawyers and prosecutors work as colleagues in the Supreme Court?
The Criminal Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court has equipped a room for litigants in its building (at 4-A Pylyp Orlyka Street). This is the judiciary's response to the results of the annual survey of court visitors in October this year.
The relevant information was published by the press service of the Supreme Court on November 14.
Judging by the posted photos, the room for the participants in the trial is an «open space» with three desks, two of which are equipped with computers (reportedly with Internet access). There is also one printer in the room. All of this is offered to participants in the proceedings for use.
While welcoming the desire of the highest court to create comfortable conditions for the participants of the proceedings in court, we should take into account two circumstances, - commented Bohdan Kushnir, Chairman of the UNBA Committee on Legal Practice. «First, in criminal cases, the participants of the hearings are representatives of the prosecution (investigators, prosecutors, victims' lawyers) and representatives of the defense (defendants' lawyers). Their interests are diametrically opposed. In practice, will procedural opponents be able to work together in the same office and use common office equipment? This is a rhetorical question. Secondly, the number of equipped workplaces in the court. And not just in court, but in the highest court! If you look at the information posted on the website of the CCU itself, you will find that, for example, 31 cases were scheduled for consideration today. At the same time, eight of them are for a single hearing. And even if we take into account that not all representatives participate in the meetings of the cassation instance, who will distribute the available three workplaces and how?».
As a reminder, the issue of arrangement of workplaces for attorneys was discussed on August 12 this year at a meeting of the Bar Council of Ukraine in Uzhhorod.
Popular news
Self-government
BCU: The HCJ’s decisions undermine the constitutional guarantees of the independence of the advocacy profession
The Bar Council of Ukraine has concluded that, in its recent decisions, the High Council of Justice has, without legal grounds, called into question the right of bar self-governing bodies to protect the guarantees of legal practice and has, in effect, attempted to grant one of its members — who retains the status of an advocate — special immunity from the Rules of professional conduct and disciplinary responsibility.
Interaction
Protecting the rights of service members: The UNBA and the Military Ombudsman have agreed on cooperation
Servicemembers, reservists, conscripts during training exercises, members of local community volunteer units, and other individuals covered by the Law «On the Military Ombudsman» should have better access to professional legal assistance.
Rule of Law Roadmap
Reform without data and advocacy: what the Ministry of Justice’s launch has revealed
The Ministry of Justice hosted the first meeting of the working group on bar reform. But instead of professional preparation of legislative changes, we saw exactly what Armada Network Director Dale Armstrong had spoken about the day before in Kyiv: not reform, but a struggle for control over the agenda through a narrow circle of “stakeholders” who create an echo chamber of influence for themselves.
Rule of Law Roadmap
Advocacy, European integration and the limits of intervention: an American report presented in Kyiv
Following its presentation in Brussels, the report «The Ukrainian advocacy in the context of the rule of law and European integration» made its way to Kyiv. It highlighted critical issues both in understanding the very nature of the self-governing profession and in the emergence of a «shadow market» surrounding the Ukrainian advocacy.
Discussion
ETAIDF and MMC: where the system fails
The new system for assessing a person’s daily functioning and the practice of undergoing medical-legal examinations have already raised numerous questions — ranging from unclear procedures to difficulties in appealing decisions. These issues were examined by advocates during the roundtable discussion «Problematic issues of the ETAIDF and MMC», organized by the UNBA Committee on the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities and the All-Ukrainian public organization «Human rights union of persons with disabilities».
Rule of Law Roadmap
Access to the advocate profession: a subgroup has identified the direction of change
On Monday, March 16, a meeting was held of the subgroup «Access to the profession and training of advocates. Organizational forms of legal practice» of the Working Group on the implementation of the Rule of Law Roadmap.
Appointment
A representative of the UNBA has arrived in Cairo
Advocate Irena Maria Ostrozka-Sangushko has been appointed as the representative of the Ukrainian National Bar Association in the Arab Republic of Egypt, in the city of Cairo. The corresponding Order No. 80, dated March 10, 2026, was signed by the President of the UNBA, BCU Lidiya Izovitova.
Rule of Law Roadmap
Organization of advocacy: subgroup agrees on approaches to regulatory reform
On March 13, a meeting was held of the «Organization of the advocacy and self-government» subgroup of the Working Group on the implementation of the Rule of Law Roadmap regarding bar reform. The event was conducted via videoconference.
Publications
Volodymyr Matsko Extradition during wartime: when the risks outweigh the request
Volodymyr Matsko Extradition as a systemic form of rights violations
Victoria Yakusha, Law and Business The anti-corruption vertical cannot «take care» of the Bar as an institution, - acting head of the HQDCB
Censor.net Protecting advocates – protecting justice: addressing concerns about the new law
Ihor Kolesnykov A BRIEF SUMMARY REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDER ON EXTENDED CONFISCATION IN LATVIA REGARDING FINANCIAL ASSETS OF…
Valentyn Gvozdiy WORKING IN A WAR ZONE
Lydia Izovitova Formula of perfection
Sergiy Vylkov Our judicial system is so built that courts do not trust advocates
