In the case regarding the death of businessman Adnan Kivan during treatment at the Odesa clinic Odrex, the first preparatory hearing in the new court ended before it even began: the lawyers for the defendants Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Belotserkovska did not appear in the courtroom and filed motions for postponement. Experts do not rule out that such defense tactics may bring the expiration of the statute of limitations closer, risking the case being closed without a verdict, UNN reports.
In the Kyivskyi District Court of Odesa, the first preparatory hearing took place in the case of Odrex clinic doctors Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Belotserkovska, who are accused under Part 1 of Article 140 – improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, which caused grave consequences for the patient.
According to the investigation, after performing surgery on Adnan Kivan, the Odrex doctors may have failed to prescribe the necessary antibacterial therapy and failed to properly respond to postoperative complications. This could have led to the development of sepsis, which caused the patient's death.
However, the first hearing in the new court did not last long. Defendant Vitaliy Rusakov was present in the courtroom in person, while Maryna Belotserkovska joined the hearing via video conference. In contrast, the defense attorneys for both defendants did not appear in court. They filed motions to postpone the proceedings, which the court granted. As a result, the hearing was adjourned, and the next hearing date was set for June 11, 2026.
The fact that the very first preparatory hearing in the new court was postponed due to the non-appearance of the defendants' lawyers only reinforces the opinion that the case may be deliberately dragged out. Experts have already pointed out that a series of procedural steps in the case of the Odrex doctors – from motions to recuse the judge to changing the jurisdiction of the proceedings – objectively increases the duration of the process and brings the expiration of the statute of limitations closer.
Denys Neviadomskyi, President of the All-Ukrainian Association of Retired Judges, believes that the court must carefully evaluate the actions of the participants in the process and react in cases where procedural rights may be used not for defense, but to delay the consideration of the case.
Everything that delays the consideration of the case affects the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court must respond to the abuse of procedural rights by the participants in the process,
According to him, the line between the conscientious use of procedural mechanisms and their abuse is often very thin.
With the skillful work of lawyers, the line between the conscientious use of procedural rights and the abuse of these rights is very thin,
Sviatoslav Bolinskyi, CEO of the law firm "Bolinskyi and Team", also points out that numerous procedural actions can have a direct impact on the timeframe for considering the case. The lawyer does not rule out that a series of such procedural steps could be part of the strategy chosen by the defense.
Procedural steps in the form of constant postponements, changes in the composition of the court, etc., can lead to the expiration of the statute of limitations with the corresponding consequences, where a person is released from criminal liability,
At the same time, the expert noted that it is only possible to definitively assess the motives for such actions after the conclusion of the case. However, the fact remains: every new postponement increases the time required to reach a decision in the proceedings, and thus brings it closer to the moment the statute of limitations expires.