VAKS rejected the defense's motion in the Energoatom case: what does this mean for the participants.

According to ТСН: During the consideration of the NABU's motion to extend the pre-trial investigation in the corruption case against 'Energoatom', the defense requested permission for Timur Mindich and Oleksandr Tsukerman to participate in the court session to explain their innocence. However, the detective opposed this, and investigating judge Ihor Strohiy rejected the defense's motion.

The right to participate in legal proceedings

The judge noted that according to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine, everyone accused has the right to defense and access to justice. 'One way to exercise this right is to appear in court and testify. There are two lawful ways for a person to participate in the court session - either they appear in person or participate via video conference.'

Ukraine has implemented the 'Electronic Court' system, which allows participants in the legal proceedings to register, identify, and remotely participate in sessions via video link. Citizens can submit documents, receive court decisions online, and perform many other tasks.

The court's position

The lawyers of Mindich and Tsukerman, as well as representatives of other participants in the case, appealed to the court to allow their participation, but the detectives opposed it. The court supported NABU's position. 'There are numerous examples where the Supreme Court allows even individuals who are wanted to attend via video conference,' one of the lawyers noted.

'Timur Mindich and Oleksandr Tsukerman have passed official authorization in the specialized service 'Electronic Court', they request to be allowed to the court session, the detective is against, the court is against, it is unclear why such a position,' he emphasized.

Oleksandr Hotin emphasized that the decision to extend the investigation period by 12 months is unprecedented in his practice, as the law has a clear procedure for phased extensions of terms. 'When they ask to extend the terms immediately by 12 months, it may indicate a lack of evidence,' he added.

Hotin also warned that if the investigating judge does not control the investigation, the community will not be able to learn the truth about the progress of the case. 'Phased extensions of terms are a procedure unified with European standards for the administration of justice,' he concluded.

Recall that the detectives filed a motion to extend the pre-trial investigation to November 2026, but the judge partially satisfied their request, extending the investigation for 9 months.

Earlier, suspicions were expressed against several individuals, including Timur Mindich, the acting director of JSC 'NAEK 'Energoatom', Dmytro Basov, and others.

Thus, the court continues the investigation in the case that has attracted wide publicity. The extension of the investigation periods opens new opportunities for collecting evidence, but also raises questions about the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies' work. It remains to be seen how events around 'Energoatom' will develop and whether new circumstances will emerge that will affect the outcome of the case.