How does the ECtHR protect the families of deceased patients after criminal cases are closed due to the expiry of the statute of limitations?
Kyiv • UNN
Families of deceased patients seek justice in the ECtHR even after criminal cases are closed due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. We examine real judicial precedents and assess this experience through the lens of the case concerning medical negligence by doctors at Odrex.
The closure of a criminal case concerning a patient's death due to the expiry of the statute of limitations does not mean that the family has lost the opportunity to protect its rights. What to do if the Ukrainian justice system draws a line under the case, and whether the European Court of Human Rights can help victims achieve justice, read in the UNN article.
Details
The ECHR's case law includes numerous cases in which the families of deceased patients unsuccessfully sought justice in Ukraine for years, and later managed to defend their rights at the European Court.
Thus, in May 2003, in Chernivtsi region, Stepania Lukashenko's son died after treatment for an infectious disease. The woman was convinced that inadequate medical care had caused her son's death and sought to have those responsible held accountable.
The investigation lasted more than ten years. The case was closed and reopened several times, and repeat examinations were carried out. It was not until 2011 that one of the doctors was notified of suspicion under Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, in 2013, the court closed the proceedings due to the expiry of the statute of limitations.
Even before the case was closed, Stepania Lukashenko applied to the ECHR. In September 2025, the Court found a violation of her rights, establishing that shortcomings in and the excessive length of the investigation had led to the doctor being exempted from criminal liability. Ukraine was ordered to pay Lukashenko €6,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and a further €1,000 for legal costs.
The Kutsenko family suffered a similar tragedy. Nina Kutsenko's son died in a hospital in Fastiv in 2003 after being brutally beaten by police officers. However, questions arose not only regarding the law enforcement officers, but also regarding the doctors who were supposed to save the man's life.
Criminal proceedings against the doctor were opened only four years after the patient's death. It took another seven years to complete them. In 2014, the medical professional was found guilty of failing to provide necessary assistance and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. However, he never went to prison—the statute of limitations expired, and the doctor was exempted from serving his sentence.
Nina Kutsenko applied to the ECHR in 2011, without waiting for the domestic proceedings to conclude. In 2017, the European Court found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, in particular due to the ineffective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the provision of medical care. In view of the totality of the violations established, including the state's responsibility for her son's death and the violence by law enforcement officers, the woman was awarded €72,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
New ECHR ruling
The problem has not remained in the past. In April 2026, the ECHR delivered a judgment in the case of "Sinko and Others v. Ukraine," joining the applications of three Ukrainians whose relatives died while receiving treatment.
In one case, a doctor was initially found guilty, but after years of court proceedings and repeat examinations, was acquitted. In another, the criminal proceedings were closed, but an investigating judge overturned that decision due to the incompleteness of the investigation. The third story concerned the death of a 27-year-old man, the circumstances of which were investigated for more than 15 years. During that time, investigators failed to conduct one of the ordered forensic medical examinations, and the case was eventually closed.
The ECHR found that Ukraine had failed to ensure an effective investigation into the circumstances of the patients' deaths and awarded each applicant €6,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Can an ECHR judgment help reopen a closed case?
As Roman Yedeliev, Associate Professor at the Department of International Law of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, previously told UNN, first and foremost, victims can obtain official recognition that the state violated their rights and receive financial compensation.
As for the possibility of reopening criminal proceedings, the expert explained: "Theoretically, yes, but not automatically." Ukrainian legislation allows court decisions to be reviewed after the ECHR has established violations of the Convention, but everything depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
At the same time, Yedelyev advises victims not to wait for the limitation periods to expire: document every postponement of a hearing, demand compliance with reasonable time limits for proceedings, and use the available protection mechanisms. After all, documented violations may later become important evidence for an application to the ECHR.
Can the victims in the case concerning the medical negligence of Odrex doctors obtain justice at the ECHR?
There is also a risk that the criminal proceedings will be closed because the limitation periods have expired in the high-profile case concerning the medical negligence of doctors at the Odesa private clinic Odrex.
The case concerns the death of Odesa businessman and founder of KADORR Group Adnan Kivan, who died in October 2024 while receiving treatment at the clinic. The defendants are surgeon Vitaliy Rusakov and oncologist Maryna Bielotserkovska. They are accused of improperly performing their professional duties. The doctors themselves do not admit their guilt.
Meanwhile, the court proceedings in the case have been accompanied by regular postponements. As UNN previously reported, in September and October 2026, only nine of the 29 scheduled hearings actually took place. The remaining 20 were postponed, in particular due to motions from the defense, the illness of one of the accused, and the lawyers’ involvement in other court proceedings.
Under Part One of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the basic limitation period is three years. If the actions charged against the doctors took place in October 2024, it may expire as early as October 2027, in the absence of legal grounds for suspending or interrupting its running.
Thus, if the case concerning the medical negligence of Odrex doctors ends without a verdict because the limitation periods have expired, this will not necessarily be the final point in Adnan Kivan’s family’s pursuit of justice.