Around 170 Maidan-related cases concerning 340 persons accused are currently being heard in courts across various regions of Ukraine. As of July 2025, proceedings against 63 defendants have been closed due to the expiry of limitation periods. Some of these decisions have not yet entered into force. According to participants in the trials interviewed by Watchers, delays in judicial proceedings have contributed to this outcome. It is a source of deep frustration for victims who have waited years for justice.

More details in the Watchers article.

Limitation periods

According to Oleksii Donskyi, Head of the Maidan Cases Department at the Prosecutor General’s Office, as of July 2025, courts had issued 53 rulings concerning 63 individuals, closing proceedings due to the expiry of limitation periods. Of these, 45 rulings concerning 53 individuals have entered into force. 

‘At the cassation level [the Supreme Court], our appeals concerning four individuals are still pending. Regarding indictments submitted to court by territorial prosecution authorities, there are 28 rulings [closing cases due to limitation periods] concerning 31 individuals. This figure also includes cases where a first-instance verdict has already been delivered but the defence filed an appeal, and during the appellate review the limitation periods expired. ‘This means that there is a guilty verdict, with no grounds for quashing it due to unlawfulness or lack of substantiation, but at the appellate stage the defence requests closure of the case. In such situations even a lawful conviction is overturned, and the case is closed due to the expiry of limitation periods’, he told Watchers. 

Victims’ representative Oksana Mykhalevych added that in some cases proceedings may continue, as not all defendants in a single case may request closure due to limitation periods. In other words, the court may close the case for some but continue hearings for the others. 

This occurred, for instance, in the case of prosecutors and investigators from the Maidan period accused of abuse of power, official forgery, knowingly unlawful detention and prosecution of innocent individuals. According to investigators, Bohdan Bondiuk, Viacheslav Honcharenko, Oleksandr Borysenko and Andrii Uzdemyr prepared official documents that enabled the detention and arrest of two bystanders — Dmytro Yurchenko and Mykhailo Ovsiienko — during the Revolution of Dignity. 

In January 2014, law enforcement officers detained the two men. Investigators drew up reports and issued notices of suspicion for alleged involvement in organising ‘mass riots’. The grounds for detention consisted of car tyres found in their vehicles. Subsequently, the court took them into custody. 

Last year, the Obolonskyi District Court of Kyiv released Bohdan Bondiuk from criminal liability at his request, closing the case against him. Proceedings continue for the remaining defendants. 

Why did the limitation periods expire?

Donskyi believes that delays in judicial proceedings have led to the closure of cases. He argues that the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) provides for such a possibility.

‘The CPC tolerates procedural abuses, making them one of the most effective tools of defence strategy. And when such opportunities exist, they are used by those interested in delaying proceedings’, he said. 

The prosecutor added that in certain cases the defence works not towards an outcome on the merits but towards delay, with the aim of eventual closure due to limitation periods. 

‘And courts do not adhere to reasonable time frames for judicial proceedings. We file motions requesting compliance with reasonable time limits, and we have lodged complaints against judges. But in the vast majority of cases, this has had no effect’, he stressed. 

Victims’ representative and lawyer Olha Veretilnyk shares this view. She told Watchers that limitation periods expired in many cases because hearings are scheduled on average once a month.

‘This is not a universal practice — hearings can be more frequent. But if the defence engages in procedural sabotage, the court may not respond for a month. For example, a defence lawyer files an unfounded motion to adjourn the hearing. The next opportunity to resume proceedings is then a month later, which significantly delays the case’, she said. 

Veretilnyk also believes that there is a clear reluctance on the part of courts to hear such cases at times. 

‘It is because they may affect the interests of judicial or law enforcement officials. Another factor is the behaviour of the parties, who may deliberately delay proceedings. For example: unfounded motions for adjourning, recusals, procedural spam or motions to change jurisdiction. This significantly slows the process. On the one hand, you can look at other grave crimes where they can procrastinate for ten years. But in this case, the reluctance of the court to deal with these cases intersects with the broader sensitivity of the topic’, she added. 

Veretilnyk stressed that the failure to observe reasonable time limits, delays in case hearings and subsequent closures due to the expiry of limitation periods are a systemic problem within Ukraine’s judiciary. 

‘This problem is usually relevant for non-grievous crimes. We can see from the register of court decisions that such cases very often are not heard within the prescribed time. For cases where the limitation period for prosecution is ten years, this is more of an exception. If the defence has tools [for delay], it uses them. Courts, however, have mechanisms to counter this phenomenon: they can schedule hearings more frequently, hold individuals liable for contempt of court, issue warnings or appoint state-funded defence lawyers’, the lawyer added. 

For example, in the case concerning the unlawful issuance of weapons to titushky from the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ warehouses, the preparatory hearing alone dragged on for five years. According to investigators, the case involves the transfer of at least 154 assault rifles and 90,000 rounds of ammunition — allegedly for use against protesters. Investigators claim the weapons were issued on the day of the mass shootings on Instytutska Street. The defendants in the case are former law enforcement officers.

In 2021, the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv released former traffic police officer Oleksandr Shcherba from criminal liability due to the expiry of limitation periods. He had been accused of official forgery and obstructing peaceful assemblies. The case concerned the administrative prosecution of activists who took part in a motorcade to Yanukovych’s residence in Mezhyhiria on 29 December 2013.

The courts were unable to hold a preparatory hearing in this case for six years. The indictment reached the court back in 2014. It was later reassigned to another court at the defence’s request. Judges then recused themselves one after another, causing further delays before the start of proceedings. 

A similar situation occurred in the case of Zaporizhzhia special forces officers Viktor Tsvyhun and Yurii Kalmykov. In 2020, the Pecherskyi Court scheduled only four hearings for the entire year, none of which took place. The case has since been transferred to the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv, where it is now being heard. 

At the time of the Maidan protests, Kalmykov was the commander of the Berkut special police unit in Zaporizhzhia Oblast, while Tsvyhun served under him. They are accused of obstructing peaceful assemblies and violently dispersing protesters during the night of 10–11 December 2013 on Instytutska Street.

Roman Ratushnyi, a civic activist, was among the victims in the case. He intended to testify in court, but in June 2022, he was killed while defending Ukraine against russian aggression.

The representative of victim Vladyslav Tsilytskyi — lawyer Serhii Hryshko — told Watchers that the closure of cases due to expired limitation periods can be regarded as a denial of justice. 

Tsilytskyi is a victim in the case against former Berkut officer Andrii Khandrykin, who stood trial for torturing two participants of the Revolution of Dignity at the colonnade of the Dynamo Stadium during the January 2014 protests. 

‘There is a wonderful English expression: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. In cases where proceedings are closed due to the expiry of limitation periods, it is both justice delayed and justice denied’, Hryshko said. 

‘If the CPC does not prohibit delays, then those delays will be used. There is only one solution to this problem — amendments to criminal procedural legislation, clear and mandatory provisions that will oblige courts to hear cases at certain intervals and prevent delay as a defence tactic’, Donskyi stressed. 

‘It would be enough to amend the Criminal Code so that limitation periods for prosecution are suspended from the moment the materials of the pre-trial investigation are disclosed. This would solve the problem of unreasonable delays, because the defence would lose the incentive to artificially prolong proceedings’, Hryshko added. 

Donskyi also explained why the prosecution is filing appeals against court decisions closing cases due to limitation periods. 

‘We file appeals because we insist that decisions must be worded exactly as prescribed by the Criminal Code — that a person is released from criminal liability for committing a crime. Courts often avoid this wording. Indeed, if a motion for closure is submitted, courts do not and cannot establish guilt, because guilt is established exclusively by a verdict. When a case is closed on non-exonerating grounds, the court does not determine the person’s guilt. At the same time, we proceed from the fact that if the Criminal Code provides for a person to be released from criminal liability for committing a crime, and the person asks the court to release them from criminal liability for committing a crime, then such wording must appear in the court’s decision’, he stated. 

Some defendants likely hope for acquittal

Victims’ lawyer in Maidan cases Svitlana Storozhuk assumes that when limitation periods have expired but neither the defence nor the accused requests closure, despite having the right to do so, they likely expect an acquittal. 

‘If the accused does not agree to release from liability and does not file the relevant motion for closure, the trial continues. If the court concludes that the accused is not guilty, it will issue an acquittal’, Storozhuk explained. 

This was the case regarding judges and a court staff member from the Obukhiv Court, who were acquitted in 2025. Investigators alleged that former chair of the Obukhiv Court Oksana Stepanova, her then-deputy and court office head Nataliia Shalapuda, and judge Oleh Mora revoked driving licences from activists after their participation in the 2013 motorcade to Mezhyhiria. Shalapuda currently serves on the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

According to the lawyer, if the court hands down a guilty verdict and imposes a sentence, the accused is still released from punishment due to the expiry of limitation periods. 

‘So even in the case of a guilty verdict, the person will be released from punishment’, she explained. 

Closed cases  

In February 2024, the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv closed the case against former commander of the Berkut special unit company Mykhailo Dobrovolskyi, releasing him from criminal liability. He had been accused of abuse of authority, official forgery and organising an attack on ‘Avtomaidan’ activists during the night of 23 January 2014.

The case concerns incidents on Konovaltsia Street (formerly Shchorsa Street) and in Kriposnyi Lane in Kyiv. According to investigators, Berkut special forces set up an ambush, during which activists were forcibly detained, their vehicles damaged and later taken to police stations. 

Those detained were prosecuted for alleged ‘hooliganism’, based on false statements given by the special unit officers themselves. Investigators claim the operation was carried out by the 1st Berkut company under Dobrovolskyi’s command. 

In 2024, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv closed the case against Oleksandr Popov, Head of the Kyiv City State Administration under Yanukovych, due to the expiry of limitation periods. He had been charged with obstructing peaceful assemblies during the Revolution of Dignity.

Investigators assert that in the night of 29–30 November 2013, municipal vehicles were sent to the Maidan on his orders, allegedly to install a Christmas tree. Special forces of Berkut then used this pretext to violently disperse protesters.

In 2024, the Boryspil City District Court released former deputy head of Kyiv police Oleksandr Kravchenko from criminal liability and closed the case against him. 

He had been accused of unlawful detentions, knowingly prosecuting innocent people and obstructing peaceful protests. At the time he served as deputy to the Head of the Kyiv Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Valerii Koriak, who is currently evading investigation.

Investigators say Kravchenko coordinated police action during the so-called ‘operation’ to suppress the actions of ‘Avtomaidan’ activists on Konovalets Street (formerly Shchorsa Street), near Hospital No. 17, on the night of 23 January 2014.

Additionally, the Zhovtnevyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia released former Head of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Volodymyr Serba, from criminal liability, thereby closing the case against him. Investigators considered him involved in the dispersal of the Zaporizhzhia Maidan in winter 2014, including through the use of titushky. 

In 2024, a Kyiv court closed one of the cases against former commander of the Kharkiv Berkut unit, Vladyslav Lukash. The case concerns the dispersal of protesters on 1 December 2013 on Bankova Street and the assault on protesters on 18 February 2014 during a peaceful march in the Government Quarter. 

Investigators accused Lukash of obstructing peaceful assemblies through the use of force, abuse of authority causing serious consequences, official negligence and obstructing the professional work of journalists.

In 2024, one of the cases against former commander of the Lviv Berkut unit, Rostyslav Patseliak, was also closed. Under his command, the Lviv Berkut unit took part — together with the Kharkiv unit — in the violent dispersal of protesters on 18 February 2014 on the Maidan. As a result of actions by law enforcement and titushky, at least 23 protesters were killed that day. 

In 2025, former Berkut officer Vitalii Khrul also avoided punishment. Investigators believe that on 30 November 2013, he and a colleague violently detained protester Dmytro Mykhalchuk. However, the case against Khrul’s colleague, Dmytro Muzyka, continues because he has not filed a motion to close the proceedings due to the expiry of the limitation period. 

In 2025, the Kyiv Court of Appeal also overturned the guilty verdict of former Berkut officer Oleh Boiko, released him from criminal liability and closed the case due to the expiry of limitation periods. 

According to investigators, Boiko took part in the violent dispersal of activists on 30 November 2013. His actions to obstruct the protest were accompanied by the beating of activists.

Justice not served 

Activist, poet and servicewoman Yelyzaveta Zharikova, who is recognised as a victim in several Maidan cases, told Watchers she takes a negative view of the reasons leading to the closure of proceedings. 

‘My negative attitude is not towards the legal procedure itself — it is lawful and normal — but towards the reasons that led to it. My demand for justice has not been satisfied. I am recognised as a victim in the case regarding the dispersal on 30 November. In my opinion, that dispersal was the starting point for the machinery of violence that has still not been halted. Through the brutality of the dispersal of a peaceful protest, the then authorities demonstrated a shift towards the russian model of state governance. And it was more telling than the official statements of public officials’, she noted. 

She believes that punishing those responsible is essential for the development of a state’s legal system. 

‘Before the full-scale invasion, I tried to be present at the hearings in which I am recognised as a victim. More than once hearings were postponed for various reasons — business trips (some defendants continued to work in the police), illness of the accused, illness of the lawyer and holidays. Sometimes the breaks between hearings lasted several months, and even judges reprimanded the defence for delays. After the invasion began, I joined the Armed Forces of Ukraine, so I could no longer participate in court directly, but my representatives said that this delaying tactic has not changed’, Zharikova said. 

In her view, appropriate punishment would involve real prison sentences, according to the gravity of crimes committed. In cases of killings, attempted killings, torture or causing serious injuries — only long terms or life imprisonment. 

‘In cases of abuse of authority and other less grievous offences, I think reduced punishment could be possible for those who defended Ukraine by taking part in combat operations since 2014. But according to my information, none of the accused in my cases has yet joined the Defence Forces’, she stressed. 

This year, the Supreme Court finally confirmed the release from criminal liability and closure of the case against former police officer of the 1st Rapid Response Company of the Kyiv Berkut Regiment, Serhii Loboda, due to the expiry of limitation periods. Zharikova is a victim in this case.

Read more about the stages of that case in the Watchers article:

Supreme Court Confirms Release of Berkut Officer Loboda from Criminal Liability over Dispersal of Student Maidan

Limitation periods in particularly grave crimes

Limitation periods have not yet expired in cases involving particularly grave crimes where the maximum penalty may be 15 years’ imprisonment. This means that the limitation periods in such cases will expire in 2028–2029, Olha Veretilnyk told Watchers.

‘And although that may seem far away now, the example of certain cases being dragged through the courts until 2024 should prompt a search for solutions. This is especially important given the workload courts will face from war crimes cases that are now coming to trial en masse, due to investigations into crimes committed by russians in the de-occupied territories’, she stressed. 

According to her, there are also risks regarding these cases. 

‘In cases where the limitation period for prosecution is 15 years, four years remain, and the chances of expiry are more than realistic. As an example, the case of journalist Vasyl Serhiienko’s murder, which is still being heard in the first instance 11 years after the crime. Another factor is the possibility for defendants to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And there are no effective ways to counter a situation in which someone accused of murder goes to serve. The case is suspended, but the limitation period continues to run’, the lawyer explained. 

Oleksii Donskyi agreed: ‘Only in cases where life imprisonment is provided as punishment (such as murder under aggravating circumstances, a terrorist act and similar offences) is there no limitation period’. 

What courts say 

In response to a Watchers inquiry, the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv stated that it has been operating under a heavy workload for years. It handled up to 80,000 cases annually (up to 5,000 cases per judge per year) before the full-scale invasion. In 2024, it dealt with 73,930 cases of various categories. 

‘Under these conditions, it is impossible to ensure the hearing of cases within the time limits established by law. The issue of reasonable time frames also requires taking into account the specific circumstances under which courts operate and administer justice under martial law, and before these severe events under COVID-19 quarantine restrictions’, the response reads. 

The court added that many cases before it concern motions at the pre-trial stage and have urgent time limits for consideration. Such cases are given priority by law.  

‘Therefore, unfortunately, we have cases from other categories being heard outside procedural deadlines. Typically, this means that the break between hearings is a month or more, as in the cases to which you refer [Maidan cases]’, the response says. 

The court also noted that objective factors may prevent hearings from taking place: non-appearance of participants, delays in confirmation of proper notification, the need for a judge to urgently hear another case with strict deadlines, illness or other unforeseen absence of a judge for objective reasons, quarantine measures and, since 2022, the threat of air attacks. 

‘The case against Oleksandr Shch. [Shcherba] has been before the court since October 2016. During this time, the case was subject to repeated automated reallocation due to the granting of recusals (self-recusals) of judges who had been involved at the pre-trial investigation stage as investigating judges, and 19 hearings were scheduled, at which the court conducted preparatory proceedings. In addition, interruptions in the proceedings were caused by the non-appearance of the accused, non-appearance of the defence lawyer, motions by the accused to hold the hearing by videoconference, non-appearance of the parties, the need for the judge to urgently hear another case with shortened deadlines, and other reasons’, the court’s response states. 

The court also noted that hearing dates were set with due regard to other cases in the judge’s docket, the judge’s other commitments and the availability of the parties. 

‘The case against Yurii K. [Kalmykov] and Viktor Ts. [Tsvyhun] has been before the court since July 2017. During this time, the case was repeatedly reassigned automatically due to the granting of recusals (self-recusals) of judges who had been involved at the stage of pre-trial investigation, and on 9 May 2023, the case was referred to the Kyiv Court of Appeal to determine jurisdiction because it was impossible to form a panel to hear the case’, the response says. 

The Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv reported that 14 Maidan cases are currently before it. It noted that among the reasons for lengthy proceedings are, in particular, changes of judges or changes in the composition of the judicial panel. 

‘After a change of judge, inter alia, example due to the expiry of their mandate, the case may have to be heard from the beginning. In some cases, the presiding judge was changed several times because judges’ mandates ended (judges retired) at different times’, the court said. 

Other reasons for prolonged hearings cited by the court include the COVID-19 pandemic, the start of russia’s full-scale invasion and large-scale blackouts. 

‘For all these reasons, judges may have to remove a case from the schedule or postpone a hearing. After adapting to working under martial law, summoning victims has become a problem. In one case, the file contains 200 volumes, and there are 200 victims. Not all of them have representatives, making notification of case hearing difficult’, the court stated. 

The court added that due to the large number of participants it is sometimes difficult to ensure proper notification of the case hearing and confirmation thereof. 

‘If even one of the defence lawyers or the prosecutor fails to appear, the court must adjourn the hearing. During part of the first half of 2025, sending postal correspondence, including court summonses, was impossible due to the lack of postage stamps’, the court added.