The scenario repeats: the defense of the Odrex doctor has again filed a motion to recuse the judge
Kyiv • UNN
The court rejected the motion to recuse the judge in the case of the Odrex doctors. The hearing was postponed until September 21 due to Vitaliy Rusakov’s absence.
In the case involving the medical negligence of Odrex private clinic doctors Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Bielotserkovska, who are accused of improperly performing their professional duties, which may have caused the death of businessman Adnan Kivan, the defendants once again filed a motion to recuse presiding judge Viktor Chaplytskyi, UNN reports.
Details
The court considered the motion and rejected it. At the same time, it was still impossible to continue hearing the case that day. It turned out that Rusakov himself had not appeared at the hearing, so the court did not proceed to further examination of the evidence. The next court hearing is scheduled for September 21.
Rusakov’s defense has repeatedly attempted to alter the course of the trial through procedural mechanisms. Several hearings ago, the lawyers also filed a motion to recuse presiding judge Viktor Chaplytskyi and requested a change of venue.
The court responded to the systematic postponement of hearings by Rusakov’s defense. After the defendant’s lawyers once again requested that the hearings be postponed on September 10 and 11 because they were participating in other court proceedings, the judge found the reasons for their absence unjustified and notified the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar. It should be noted that since the beginning of the trial, more than a dozen hearings have been postponed at the request of the defense.
Will the delay in the Odrex case have consequences for the lawyers?16.09.26, 09:01 • 36009 views
As a judge of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine, retired, Oleksandr Sytnykov, previously explained to UNN, if lawyers’ actions systematically lead to delays in the proceedings, a judge cannot simply record further postponements—they must respond to them, since the judge is personally responsible for ensuring that the case is heard within a reasonable time.
The latest postponement of the hearing of an independent medical expert makes the possible procedural maneuvers particularly telling. In May, when the expert had already arrived at court, the defense initiated a change of venue. Now, when the case has once again reached the hearing of the key medical part of the evidence, the lawyers are bombarding the judge with motions.
Against this backdrop, the issue of the statute of limitations is becoming increasingly acute. In the case concerning the medical negligence of Odrex doctors, the limitation period expires in the autumn of 2027. If the court does not issue a final decision by then, the doctors may avoid criminal liability even if the evidence indicates their guilt. That is why each new motion reduces the time remaining to complete the consideration of the case.