News

During the hearing of the case of Romas Zamolskis at the Panevėžys Regional Court, the defendant's lawyer, among other requests to the court, submitted R. Zamolskis' request to recuse the presiding judge of the panel, Judge Valdas Meidus.

Having reviewed the arguments of the recusal motion, the two members of the panel of judges examining the recusal, Judges Danutė Švitinienė and Daina Vaidachavičienė, rejected the request of Romas Zamolskis and his lawyer to recuse the presiding judge of the panel, Judge Valdas Meidus. The judges stated that the recusal was requested without grounds specified by law and without following the procedure for submitting a recusal motion.

The judges concluded that there was neither legal nor factual basis to recuse the presiding judge of the panel, Valdas Meidus.

Although R. Zamolskis requested the recusal of the presiding judge, Valdas Meidus, on the grounds that the judge had signed documents regarding the hearing of the case in R. Zamolskis' absence, the judges examining the recusal noted that, on the contrary, the judge's written documents contained no allusions or observations that the case would be heard in the defendant's absence, and were written to properly organize the proceedings, thus, they did not indicate any bias on the part of the judge.

The judges also stated that it was not the presiding judge, but the entire panel of three judges who decided that the case would be heard in the defendant's absence, having assessed the entire situation in the case, i.e., that R. Zamolskis is serving a sentence in Russia, that the request to transfer R. Zamolskis to Lithuania was not granted, and also the impossibility of him participating in the case hearing remotely due to restrictions on such contacts in state institutions.

It is also noteworthy that the recusal was requested without following the procedure for submitting such a motion. Romas Zamolskis was aware of the circumstances regarding Judge Valdas Meidus' written documents, as well as the decision to hear the case in the defendant's absence, before the start of the evidence examination in court, but did not request a recusal either at the beginning of the evidence examination when R. Zamolskis was represented by his first lawyer, or during the previous hearing when a new lawyer for the defendant joined the case.

When quoting or otherwise distributing this information, please indicate the source of the information.

Contact for the media: