Supreme Court: a judge cannot satisfy his own self-recusal in a criminal trial

Violation of procedure is a ground for disciplinary liability

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed that a judge in criminal proceedings does not have the right to independently satisfy his/her own self-recusal. Such actions are a violation of procedural law and may be qualified as a disciplinary offense.

The corresponding conclusion was made based on the results of consideration of the complaint of a judge who was brought to disciplinary liability for independently resolving the issue of his/her own self-recusal.

The court’s position: the procedure is clearly defined

The Grand Chamber emphasized that although the Criminal Procedure Code does not directly detail the procedure for self-recusal separately, the provisions of Article 81 of the CPC of Ukraine should be applied systematically – both to recusal and self-recusal.

Therefore, in the event of a self-recusal by a judge who is considering the case alone, this issue should be resolved by another judge of the same court, determined by the automated system.

Independent decision — not a “mistake”, but a violation

The court emphasized that independent consideration of one’s own self-recusal is a deliberate violation of procedural norms, not a technical error. Such actions indicate the judge’s negligence and constitute a disciplinary offense.

At the same time, arguments about alleged gaps in the legislation or different judicial practice cannot justify a violation of a clearly defined procedure.

Significance of the decision

Thus, the Grand Chamber effectively put an end to the discussion on the possibility of a judge’s independent decision on the issue of his own self-recusal in criminal proceedings.

From now on, such actions will be clearly regarded as a disciplinary offense, which is of great importance for ensuring the impartiality of the trial and compliance with procedural guarantees.

.