Key legal question
Whether the complaint against the order replacing ex officio counsel was admissible under Art. 93 BGG.
Extracted holding
The complaint was inadmissible because the appellant did not show, and no irreparable legal disadvantage was apparent.
Extracted reasoning
The order was an interim decision. For such decisions under Art. 93(1)(a) BGG, the appellant must demonstrate a non-remediable legal harm. A mere change of appointed counsel does not normally cause such harm, absent serious neglect of duties or a compelled removal against the accused's will and counsel's will.