Why Are HACC Cases Not Considered as Quickly as We Would Like, and How to Fix It?

In its five years of operation, the High Anti-Corruption Court has demonstrated significant effectiveness. However, concerns have grown over time that cases are not being considered as quickly as society expects and that there have been fewer verdicts in high-profile cases than initially anticipated. We explored the factors affecting the speed of HACC case consideration and how the situation can be improved.

According to court statistics for 2024, an average HACC case takes 618 days to be considered, and 97 cases have remained unresolved for more than two years. Monitoring of HACC cases showed that the average duration of a criminal case hearing on the merits is 1 hour and 32 minutes. As of January 17, 2025, a total of 286 cases are under consideration in court.

At first glance, these figures may seem acceptable, especially compared to the duration of top corruption cases in other courts before the HACC was established. However, in reality, the situation is different, as the statute of limitations for criminal liability expires regardless of which court is hearing the case.

During its monitoring of HACC operations from October 2023 to June 2024, Transparency International Ukraine found that the expiration of the statute of limitations allowed Svitlana Ancheieva, an official of the Ovidiopol DSA who allegedly facilitated the misappropriation of state-owned land by third parties, to avoid punishment. That caused UAH 17.5 million in losses. For the same reason, the court did not examine the merits of the case against Mykhailo Beilin, a restaurateur and former freelance adviser to the head of the Presidential Administration, Borys Lozhkin. The case involved UAH 20 million in losses to Ukrzaliznytsia.

The issue of timing is especially pressing now, as the HACC is expected to consider many high-profile cases where defendants may avoid proper trial due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. While the proportionality of punishment is important, its inevitability is even more crucial.

How the consideration of cases is delayed and how it threatens justice

The monitoring revealed that 55% of cases involve procedural abuses aimed at delaying the trial. The situation with the DACK judges’ case is a prominent example—since June 20, 2022, almost every session begins with challenges. This article may even become another reason to challenge the panel of judges. The speeches of many case participants are also time-consuming and, from an outside observer’s perspective, unreasonably wordy. In another case involving $8 million in losses to Ukrkosmos, the interrogation of one accused has now lasted several months. In the case of alleged Nasirov’s accomplice Liudmyla Solotva, sessions are scheduled with such long intervals that, after October 23, 2024, the next one was set for January 13, 2025. This was further delayed, with the next session scheduled for February 5, 2025, despite the statute of limitations expiring in 2026.

It is clear that the HACC handles complex cases, requiring the examination of numerous documents and the interrogation of many witnesses. After all, fair justice demands hearing the arguments of every participant in the case, with the rights of defendants fully observed. However, there are situations where, from an outside observer’s perspective, participants’ speeches appear to be used as tools to delay the case, leaving even less time than the 1.5 hours allocated for hearings to investigate evidence or resolve procedural matters.

Participants employ various tactics to delay the case. In addition to regular, unreasonable challenges, it is common for defendants to request the rescheduling of their interrogation to the next session, even when only 30 minutes remain in the current one. A good example of this tactic is the case of former Dnipro District Court judge Chaus, where the interrogation lasted for about four months. Another example is the case of former MP Kriuchkov, accused of embezzling over UAH 1.5 billion from Cherkasyoblenergo and Zaporizhzhiaoblenergo, where the debate lasted more than four months due to the accused’s failure to appear.

Defendants often schedule doctor visits a day before the court session, and their lawyers claim that their clients cannot attend the session at the last minute. However, the court notes that the session schedule is approved in advance, and the submitted documents do not provide any evidence of serious illness or an objective reason for non-attendance, such as attending via videoconference.

Another issue affecting the consideration of HACC cases is the mobilization of defendants. During the reporting period, the court suspended 9 proceedings for this reason—7 at the first instance and 2 on appeal. While this is justified in many cases, mobilization is sometimes used as a tactic to delay the process.

A prominent example is the case of former MP Ruslan Solvar and his abuse of the right to compensation for housing costs. After his case had been heard in three court instances since 2020, just before the final stage of the judicial process—the last word—the defendant signed a contract with the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Prior to this, several hearings had been postponed due to his illness. However, despite the delays, this did not prevent the HACC from issuing a verdict of 3 years in prison, just two months after Solvar signed the contract with the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

How the HACC counteracts delays in the process

The court strives to prevent procedural delays. Some panels of judges set final deadlines for the submission of certain motions and limit the length of defense lawyers’ speeches. In other cases, the HACC considers cases in absentia and issues warnings to those who disrupt judicial procedures.

However, these measures are not always effective. The HACC could more frequently establish clearer timeframes for trial stages, particularly setting time limits for interrogations and speeches in complex cases with multiple defendants.

The court also rarely imposes monetary penalties for failing to perform procedural duties, often limiting itself to warnings. When penalties are imposed, they are disproportionately small—ranging from UAH 1,500 to UAH 6,000 in 2024—and are primarily applied in cases of non-appearance at court sessions. For example, according to judicial statistics for the first half of 2024, such penalties were imposed five times, with the accused being ordered to be brought to court four times and witnesses three times.

Also, HACC judges rarely use their authority to hold participants in the proceedings administratively liable for contempt of court. The monitoring process revealed instances where grounds for this were present, such as rude statements about judges and disputes with them.

The court could also more often appeal to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission with disciplinary complaints against defenders who deliberately delay the case, although the effectiveness of handling such complaints is still low. The issue persists that presiding judges do not always actively manage hearings or prevent unjustified delays in the process.

Additionally, the court is inconsistent in its approach to suspending proceedings due to mobilization. In some cases, the mere fact of service is enough to suspend the proceedings, while in others, the possibility for the accused to participate in the session via videoconference is further examined.

Due to ongoing competition, a pressing issue for the HACC AC may arise from reconsidering cases due to changes in the composition of the court. According to the law, when a judge is replaced, the case must be reconsidered from the beginning if the participants request it.

In November alone, this occurred in at least three cases: the DACK case, the “apartment” case of Maksym Mykytas, and the case of Pavlo Vovk’s brother, Yurii Zontov. There have been situations where HACC judges considered it an abuse of procedural rights when, after a judge’s replacement (Oleh Koliush, appointed a member of the HQCJ), participants in the case insisted on redoing procedural actions already carried out before the replacement. However, this practice is incorrect, as the appellate instance had already overturned the verdict for former Ministry of Agrarian Policy official Olena Polishchuk because the updated panel of judges did not restart the hearing of the case.

What the parliament has already done

In 2024, the Verkhovna Rada finally adopted an important law on the single-judge trial of HACC cases. Although it does not fully address all recognized recommendations (for example, cases against MPs accused of minor crimes should still be heard collectively), the results are already noticeable.

As of January 30, the HACC has considered 46 criminal proceedings. In total, since May 16, 19 sentences have already been passed.

The process itself has noticeably accelerated. For instance, there were five trials in the case concerning damages to the state-owned company Ukrspetsexport from June 14 to July 1, 2024, and another five trials in the corruption case involving Tsentrenerho from May 28 to June 27, 2024. Particularly revealing is the case of MP Odarchenko, which was sent to court in April 2024, with the verdict being passed in November of the same year.

What else needs to be done

To improve the situation, several legislative changes need to be adopted. The NACP has developed a special draft law to counter the abuse of procedural rights, but it has not yet been registered in Parliament. This regulation allows the investigating judge or court to recognize such cases and grants the authority to make a separate decision in instances of abuse. It also expands the grounds for applying monetary penalties.

Draft law No. 11387, currently under consideration in Parliament and adopted in the first reading, proposes increasing fines and monetary penalties for contempt of court and improper procedural behavior, as well as introducing changes to criminal procedure legislation. However, this draft law lacks a comprehensive approach to improving the effectiveness of judicial proceedings. Therefore, TI Ukraine experts have recommended supplementing the law with the following provisions:

–       In cases of contempt of court, the court session secretary will prepare a report, which will then be transmitted through an automated system to the new composition of the court.

–       The court will have the authority to impose fines on lawyers who miss hearings without valid reasons.

Unfortunately, the committee preparing the draft for the second reading did not take our recommendations into account, so the adoption of this regulatory act is unlikely to positively impact the effectiveness of court proceedings.

In addition, it is necessary to balance the legislation on the mobilization of defendants. In May of last year, parliament allowed convicts to be released from serving their sentences in exchange for contract military service but deprived top corrupt officials of this right. This demonstrates the state’s unwavering commitment to fighting corruption, but purely legislative norms are still insufficient. In particular, the HACC should unify its practice of suspending proceedings due to mobilization, ensuring that it does not become a tool for delaying cases, but rather contributes to a more efficient process.

This could both contribute to and hinder the acceptance of draft law No. 11265, which stipulates that court proceedings may not be suspended if the accused does not object to the continuation of the trial and can participate in court sessions. We believe this provision should be improved, ensuring that if a defendant is mobilized, the possibility of their participation in court sessions, considering their service conditions, is a critical factor in continuing the trial.

The parliament also needs to address the potential issue of reconsidering cases after changes in the court composition. This issue may become even more complicated following the competition in the HACC AC, which is already being participated in by some current judges of the Anti-Corruption Court. To avoid such situations, we believe the law should stipulate that when a judge is replaced during the trial, the consent of the participants in the criminal proceedings should not be required to continue the trial. We are confident that audio and video recordings of all court sessions enable a new judge to familiarize themselves with everything that occurred in the proceedings before joining the case.

***

A reasonable time frame for considering cases by the HACC is not only a matter of court efficiency but also of ensuring the inevitability of punishment for corruption. The closure of proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations not only nullifies the efforts of law enforcement agencies but also undermines public confidence in the anti-corruption system as a whole. Furthermore, there are often parties involved in the trial who have an interest in the expiration of these terms, preventing the court from making a decision on the merits.

Although significant steps have been taken over the past year to expedite case consideration, notably through the introduction of individual trials and some unification of practices by HACC judges, this is still insufficient. A comprehensive approach is needed, ranging from strengthening measures against procedural abuse to refining legislation on statutes of limitations. Only by addressing these issues can we ensure both proportional and inevitable punishment for corruption, while safeguarding the rights of participants in criminal proceedings.