International observers have recorded circumstances in the Rotterdam+ criminal proceedings that European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) practice considers indicative of a potential violation of fair trial guarantees. This was reported by RBC-Ukraine, citing a monitoring mission report by IAC ISHR dated September 11, 2026. According to the mission's assessment, this concerns a potential violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms (Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights), as well as the right to effective defense (Article 6(3) of the Convention).

"Dubious Evidence": The Core of the Observers' Grievances

The report notes that the proceedings retain a previously recorded trend of "dubious evidence," which the mission had already highlighted in its reports of August 28 and 31, and September 2 and 3. According to the observers, the defense's challenges regarding the origin, credibility, admissibility, and probative value of the prosecution's materials are repeated without receiving sufficiently persuasive, substantive refutations. At the same time, the mission clarifies that it is not a matter of establishing the inadmissibility or unreliability of the evidence, but rather of objectively significant doubts regarding their reliability, which require proper verification and reasoned judicial assessment.

What the Court Is Examining This Autumn

During the current autumn period, the court is examining written prosecution evidence. These relate to coal pricing, rental payments, coal imports and supplies, and the methodology for determining the projected wholesale electricity market price. According to the prosecution, economically unjustified approaches were applied when adopting the relevant Procedure, and certain interested entities influenced the formation of its indicators. The defense, in turn, stated that the prosecution compared economically heterogeneous indicators: actual and projected values, the cost of coal for mines, and the revenues of generating companies.

Dispute Over the Nature of the Incriminated Actions

During the proceedings, the court asked the prosecutor how the openness of the Procedure's adoption process, insisted upon by the accused, aligns with the version of the criminal nature of their actions. The prosecutor explained that the prosecution concerns primarily the economic unjustifiedness of the Procedure and limited access to some working materials prior to its approval, rather than complete concealment of information. The court noted that economic unjustifiedness in itself does not exhaust the content of the incriminated criminal offense. The defense also emphasized that part of the correspondence, which the prosecution considers internal communication, was initiated by NEURC itself within the framework of official interaction.

Reliance on ECtHR Practice

The mission referred to ECtHR rulings in the cases of Maharik v. Czech Republic and Djuric v. Serbia. According to these precedents, the fairness of proceedings is assessed taking into account the quality and reliability of the evidence, and the court is obliged to provide a reasoned response to the substantial arguments of the parties. It is on this basis that the observers qualify the recorded circumstances as a potential risk of violating Article 6 of the Convention.

Chronology of the Case: Five Closures and Resumptions

The investigation into the Rotterdam+ case began in March 2017. During this time, the prosecution closed the case five times due to the absence of a corpus delicti, but then resumed the investigation again. Thus, in October 2023, the High Anti-Corruption Court decided to close the case, and already in December of the same year, the Appeals Chamber of the HACC overturned the decision to close it. Lawyers had previously pointed out that the investigation retains a number of violations that raise doubts about the objectivity and transparency of the pre-trial investigation.

What Is "Rotterdam+"?

Rotterdam+ was a formula for determining the price of coal for Ukraine's thermal power plants in 2016–2019. It took into account the cost of coal at the port of Rotterdam along with transportation costs and affected electricity tariffs. The mechanism was introduced to provide TPPs with fuel after the loss of access to anthracite deposits in the temporarily occupied part of Donbas. Subsequently, the formula became the subject of NABU investigations due to potential overpayments.