On 19 September, the HACC closed criminal proceedings against a Ministry of Defense official accused of abuse in the procurement of artillery shells. The reason lies in the notorious “Lozovyi amendments,” which, despite being partially repealed, continue to block the adjudication of corruption cases.
Case details
In December 2023, the Main Investigative Department of the Security Service of Ukraine uncovered a scheme involving alleged abuse in the procurement of artillery shells for the Armed Forces. A suspicion notice was served on Oleksandr Nahorskyi, Head of the Main Directorate for Ammunition Production and Fortifications at the Ministry of Defense.
Initially, the Specialized Defense Prosecutor’s Office charged the official under Article 114-1(2) of the Criminal Code. Later, in August 2024, the prosecution added Article 364(2) of the Criminal Code, a corruption offense. According to the investigation, in December 2022 Nahorskyi, despite the existence of a more advantageous direct contract with a manufacturer, at a lower price and with faster delivery, continued an agreement with an intermediary company that had previously defaulted on Ministry of Defense orders.
As a result, the intermediary received UAH 1.5 billion, which exceeded the value of the product under the manufacturer’s direct contract by UAH 130 million.
Why did the HACC close the case?
HACC Judge Kateryna Shyroka closed the case against Nahorskyi on the ground that the prosecutor had filed the indictment 64 days after the statutory time limit for pre-trial investigation had expired.
The problem arose because the pre-trial investigation deadline was extended by an investigating judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv, rather than by an investigating judge of the HACC. Once the corruption charge was added, jurisdiction over the case shifted to the HACC.
Accordingly, the SSU investigator should have applied to the Anti-Corruption Court to extend the investigation period by two months. Instead, he mistakenly applied to a local court of general jurisdiction, which no longer had competence over the case.
The HACC found that the local court’s decision was unlawful because it had been issued not by a “tribunal established by law,” potentially violating the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Consequently, the extension was deemed invalid, and the prosecutor’s indictment was filed 64 days out of time.
Another example of the harmful impact of the “Lozovyi Amendments”
This situation arose because Parliament has failed, for nearly two years, to fully repeal the harmful “Lozovyi amendments.” Even after their partial repeal in December 2023, Article 284(1)(10) of the Criminal Procedure Code still obliges courts to close any case (except cases of violence) once the investigation time limit formally expires.
Defense counsel for the accused Ministry of Defense official successfully relied on this provision, requesting termination of the proceedings on the basis of Article 284(1)(10) CPC.
The decision has not yet entered into legal force and, according to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, the prosecutor is expected to appeal. However, this and similar situations, such as the fifth closure of the Rotterdam+ case, could have been avoided had the obligation to close proceedings under Article 284(1)(10) CPC been repealed.
The Nahorskyi case is yet another negative example of how poorly drafted legislation can effectively turn courts into hostages of unreasonable formal requirements. The district court’s decision, though procedurally flawed, contained sufficient reasoning to extend the investigation for two months. Yet due to this legislative defect, a high-profile corruption case risks being buried. Until the “Lozovyi amendments” are definitively removed, similar high-stakes cases may continue to end not with judgments, but with orders to close proceedings.
***
P.S. The prosecutor subsequently appealed the decision. The HACC Appeals Chamber concluded that the HACC had wrongly closed the proceedings and, on December 1, 2025, granted the prosecutor’s appeal, overturned the ruling on the closure of the case, and ordered a new hearing in the court of first instance.
Authors: Andrii Tkachuk, Legal Advisor at Transparency International Ukraine
.png)
.png)
.png)