Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of the legality of the conviction and the appellate court ruling regarding the sentencing of a driver for a traffic safety violation that resulted in fatalities, with a focus on the issues of compliance with the right to defense and the assessment of the procedural conduct of the parties.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court emphasized the importance of a balance between the defendant’s right to defense and the state’s obligation to ensure effective investigation of crimes against life (Article 2 of the Convention), especially under conditions of approaching statute of limitations deadlines.
– It was established that the convicted person abused procedural rights by dismissing attorneys familiar with the case without valid reasons two weeks before the expiration of the statute of limitations, which created artificial obstacles to the appellate review.
– The appellate court took all possible measures to ensure the participation of defense counsel; however, their systematic failure to appear (in particular, citing vacations without proper justification) was interpreted as manipulation.
– The Court stressed that the appellate review did not involve the examination of new evidence or the questioning of witnesses; therefore, the absence of an attorney at the hearing did not lead to a violation of the right to defense, which had been exercised through the filed appeals.
– Regarding the arguments concerning the inadmissibility of the investigative experiment, the Court noted that even if one assumes a violation occurred, this data was not used as the basis for the prosecution, and therefore it did not affect the legality of the verdict.
– **Conclusion:** The Court departed from the previous position set forth in the ruling of July 05, 2023 (case No. 722/889/21), noting that the failure of a defense counsel to appear due to vacation is not automatically a valid reason, but must be assessed by the court through the prism of the good faith of procedural conduct.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeals were dismissed.
