---
title: "Rotterdam+ Case: International Mission Highlights Risks of Fair Trial Violations"
description: "The IAC ISHR monitoring mission, in a report dated September 11, 2026, pointed to circumstances in the Rotterdam+ case that, under ECtHR practice, may indicate a violation of fair trial guarantees."
date: 2026-11-09T09:48:48.762Z
lang: en
url: https://xab.info/en/posts/rotterdam-case-international-mission-fair-trial-risks
tags: [rotterdam-plus, ukraine-court, fair-trial, echr, nabu, energy-pricing, anti-corruption]
author: "Alexander Buran"
publisher: "XAB.info"
---

# Rotterdam+ Case: International Mission Highlights Risks of Fair Trial Violations

![Judge in robes with an official badge and a document in hand in a courtroom](https://xab.info/media/2026/11/09/delo-rotterdam-mezhdunarodnaya-missiya-riski-spravedlivogo-suda/delo-rotterdam-mezhdunarodnaya-missiya-riski-spravedlivogo-suda-1.webp)

## Key Points

- The IAC ISHR mission (report of Sept 11, 2026) recorded circumstances in the Rotterdam+ case that, under ECtHR practice, may indicate a violation of Article 6(1) and (3) of the Convention.
- Observers speak not of the inadmissibility of evidence, but of objectively significant doubts about its reliability, requiring a reasoned judicial assessment.
- This autumn, the court is examining written evidence regarding coal pricing, rental payments, and the methodology of the projected wholesale electricity price.
- The investigation has been ongoing since March 2017; the prosecution closed the case five times, the HACC closed the proceedings in 2023, and the Appeals Chamber later overturned that decision.

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.

## Fact-Check & Sources

- [Дело "Роттердам+": международная миссия указала на риски нарушения права на справедливый суд](https://www.rbc.ua/ukr/news/sprava-rotterdam-mizhnarodna-misiya-vkazala-1794217391.html) - Primary source: monitoring mission report by IAC ISHR dated 11.09.2026, references to Art. 6(1) and (3) of the Convention, ECtHR cases 'Maharik v. Czech Republic' and 'Djuric v. Serbia', chronology of case closures since 2017. All facts in the article are taken from this source.

## FAQ

### What exactly did the IAC ISHR mission record?

Observers pointed to circumstances that ECtHR practice considers a sign of a possible violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms (Article 6(1) of the Convention) and the right to an effective defense (Article 6(3) of the Convention).

### Did the mission establish the inadmissibility of the prosecution's evidence?

No. The mission clarifies that it is not about establishing the inadmissibility or unreliability of the evidence, but about objectively significant doubts regarding their reliability, which require proper verification and reasoned judicial assessment.

### What is "Rotterdam+"?

This is a formula for determining the price of coal for Ukrainian TPPs in 2016–2019, which took into account the cost of coal in the port of Rotterdam and transportation costs. It was introduced after the loss of access to anthracites in the occupied part of Donbas and later became the subject of investigations due to potential overpayments.