On October 27, the Kyivskyi District Court of Odesa once again failed to continue hearing the case concerning the medical negligence of doctors at the private Odrex clinic. According to the publication’s sources, this time the reason was a motion filed by Yuliia Duz, the lawyer for defendant Maryna Bielotserkovska, who is occupied with other court proceedings. As a result, the hearing scheduled for October 28 was also postponed, UNN reports.
The next hearings in the case are scheduled for October 29 and 30. However, whether they will take place remains an open question. The court proceedings in the case concerning the medical negligence of Odrex doctors are overwhelmed by postponements, which may raise suspicions that the process is being deliberately protracted in order to allow the statute of limitations to expire.
In September, the court managed to hold fewer than half of the scheduled hearings in full—6 out of 13. October risks becoming an even greater mockery of the Ukrainian judicial system. Of the 16 hearings scheduled for the month, as of October 27 only three had taken place in full, while another 11 had been postponed. Even if the final two October hearings do take place, the court will end the month with a record of "5 out of 16".
Two years after Adnan Kivan’s death: will the court manage to deliver a verdict?
It is symbolic that the latest postponement of the hearing took place precisely on October 27 and 28 — the second anniversary of the death of Odesa businessman Adnan Kivan. He died on October 28, 2024, while being treated for cancer at the private Odrex clinic.
According to the investigation, after the surgical intervention, doctors Rusakov and Bielotserkovska may have failed to provide appropriate treatment for postoperative complications. This could have contributed to the development of sepsis, which, against the backdrop of the cancer, may have led to Adnan Kivan’s death.
Surgeon Vitalii Rusakov and oncologist Maryna Bielotserkovska are charged under Part 1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine—improper performance by a medical professional of their professional duties, resulting in serious consequences for a patient.
Neither doctor admits guilt. The court must provide a final assessment of their actions or inaction. However, it is unknown whether this process will be completed before the statute of limitations expires.
Under Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the limitation period for the offense charged against the doctors is three years. If the actions or inaction attributed to them took place in October 2024, the issue of the statute of limitations expiring could arise as early as autumn 2027—unless there are grounds established by law for suspending or interrupting it.
At the same time, the law establishes an important condition: the limitation period is calculated up to the moment the verdict enters into legal force. Thus, even if the court of first instance manages to issue a decision, subsequent appellate proceedings may be relevant to the application of this provision.
What does this mean for the defendants? If the conditions established by law are met, the court may release them from criminal liability because the statute of limitations has expired, without finally resolving the issue of guilt. At the same time, closing the proceedings in this manner is not an acquittal and does not establish a person’s innocence.
If the doctors are confident of their innocence and seek specifically an acquittal in order to defend their professional reputation, they may insist that the court proceedings continue.
Who will be held responsible for delaying the court proceedings?
The constant postponement of hearings raises another fundamental question: who must ensure that a high-profile criminal case is heard within a reasonable time if the defendants’ lawyers regularly file motions to adjourn the hearings?
Earlier, retired judge of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine Oleksandr Sytnykov emphasized in a comment to UNN that responsibility for observing reasonable time limits for court proceedings also rests, in particular, with the presiding judge. Even if delays are caused by the actions of the participants in the proceedings, the court must use the mechanisms provided by law to ensure the timely consideration of the case.
"A judge has procedural time limits, compliance with which may also make the judge subject to disciplinary liability," Sytnykov emphasized.
According to him, обращения to disciplinary bodies because of the conduct of participants in the proceedings does not release the presiding judge from the duty to respond to further delays.
Let us remind you
The presiding judge in the Odrex doctors' case, Viktor Chaplytskyi, responded to the systematic absences of defense attorneys more than a month and a half ago. Chaplytskyi deemed the reasons for the defense lawyers' absence from September 1 to 10 unjustified and sent the corresponding ruling to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (QDСB).