Administrative courts
My correspondence with Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (KNU) and the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) concerned holding Danyliuk and his associates accountable for plagiarism. The main milestones of this correspondence are presented in the article On culture and barbarism. Here, you can find more detailed information and updates.
I apologize in advance that all documents are presented without translation into English — translating official documents is an extremely time-consuming task, and I simply do not have enough time and energy for it!
16.04.2022 - Filed a complaint with KNU requesting an investigation of the plagiarism case and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on the plagiarists; submitted a similar complaint to MES.
16.04.2022 - Filed a complaint with KNU requesting an investigation of the plagiarism case and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on the plagiarists; submitted a similar complaint to MES.
20.04.2022 - Received a bureaucratic response from the MES: they simply forwarded my complaint to KNU.
06.06.2022 - Sent a follow-up request to KNU, asking to be promptly informed about the results of my complaint’s review.
11.06.2022 - Submitted a renewed complaint to the MES, requesting that it ensure KNU complies with the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals” and that measures be taken to hold the university’s officials administratively liable under Article 212³ of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (failure to respond to an appeal).
11.06.2022 - Submitted a renewed complaint to the MES, requesting that it ensure KNU complies with the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals” and that measures be taken to hold the university’s officials administratively liable under Article 212³ of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (failure to respond to an appeal).
25.06.2022 - Submitted a statement of claim to the Kyiv District Administrative Court against KNU, requesting the following:
1. To recognize the unlawful inaction of the Respondent in violating Articles 40 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Articles 18, 19, and 20 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals”, namely:
- failure to provide a reasoned written response to my complaint of 16 April 2022, which constitutes a violation of Article 40 of the Constitution of Ukraine;
- failure to provide the results of the review and information on the substance of the decisions made in response to my complaint, submitted in accordance with the law on 16 April 2022, which constitutes a violation of Article 19 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals”;
- failure to consider and resolve the issues raised in the complaint within the time limits established by Article 20 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals.”
2. To oblige the Respondent to provide a reasoned written response to my complaint of 16 April 2022, including the results of the review and information on the substance of the decisions made, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals” and the Constitution of Ukraine.
30.06.2022 - Received a response from KNU signed by First Vice-Rector V. Ilchenko: “a relevant commission was established (...) following the work of the commission (...) Danyliuk withdrew the article (...), which indicates that the violation of your copyright has been remedied. The removal of the publication is evidenced by the absence in the journal’s table of contents of pages 55–61, on which the article had been placed.”
I have already commented on this response earlier. Evidently, the results of the commission’s work came as a surprise to the KNU administration. They had likely hoped to quietly smooth things over — to declare, as state institutions do in 99% of such cases, that “no violation was found.”
However, the head of the commission, Professor O. Kolezhuk, acted with integrity and carried out a thorough investigation. After that, the university administration apparently decided to conceal the findings. No details of the commission’s work were disclosed.
What conclusions did it actually reach? Did Daniliuk withdraw the article, or was it retracted from publication? These are different things. The mere absence of the article from the table of contents does not mean it was withdrawn — it only suggests an attempt to cover up the misconduct. A retraction must be done formally by the editorial board, accompanied by a published notice of retraction. It is also worth noting the tone of the response: KNU carefully avoids using any negative language in relation to Danyliuk. And there is not a single word about holding anyone accountable.
So this is how it turns out: at the country’s leading university, one can plagiarize, then quietly “withdraw” a paper — and everything is apparently fine.
Later, KNU would make further attempts to cover its tracks: my thesis was located in the university archive and destroyed destroyed — despite the fact that the legally required retention period had not yet expired.
15.07.2022 - Filled a complaint with the Ombudsman regarding KNU’s violation of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals.”
08.08.2022 - Arrived a response from KNU, signed by Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs O. Dobzhanska. Once again, there was no information about the results of the commission’s work. However, they did mention disciplinary responsibility: “At present, it is not possible to impose disciplinary sanctions on Kozytska I.V. and Shykovets S.O., since Kozytska resigned on 31 May 2021 at her own request, and postgraduate student Shykovets has been mobilized and is serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Regarding the Dean of the Faculty of Psychology, I.V. Danyliuk, under the Ethical Code of the University Community, the matter raised by the applicant must be reviewed by the Standing Ethics Committee of the Academic Council of KNU. The Standing Committee conducts its work in the form of meetings convened as necessary to address specific issues. Considering that the members of the Academic Council — including the Standing Committee — are academic staff (comprising 75% of the total membership) who, during the summer months of June–August, are on their annual leave (56 calendar days), the committee can only review the matter after their return from vacation. You will be duly informed of the results.”
08.08.2022 - Arrived a response from KNU, signed by Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs O. Dobzhanska. Once again, there was no information about the results of the commission’s work. However, they did mention disciplinary responsibility: “At present, it is not possible to impose disciplinary sanctions on Kozytska I.V. and Shykovets S.O., since Kozytska resigned on 31 May 2021 at her own request, and postgraduate student Shykovets has been mobilized and is serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Regarding the Dean of the Faculty of Psychology, I.V. Danyliuk, under the Ethical Code of the University Community, the matter raised by the applicant must be reviewed by the Standing Ethics Committee of the Academic Council of KNU. The Standing Committee conducts its work in the form of meetings convened as necessary to address specific issues. Considering that the members of the Academic Council — including the Standing Committee — are academic staff (comprising 75% of the total membership) who, during the summer months of June–August, are on their annual leave (56 calendar days), the committee can only review the matter after their return from vacation. You will be duly informed of the results.”
It should be added that the commission established to investigate the plagiarism case had already signed its conclusions on 3 May 2022. So what kind of “summer leave” could possibly have prevented the university from holding Daniliuk accountable back in May?
12.09.2022 - Another request was submitted to KNU asking for additional clarifications regarding the conclusions reached by the commission, in particular whether the fact of plagiarism had been confirmed.
12.10.2022 - Arrived a response from KNU: finally, they provided the commission’s signed report and conclusions! I’m not sure what exactly happened, but judging by the name of the executor, I suspect that the integrity of the commission’s chair, O. Kolezhuk, once again played a decisive role. I had managed to find his email address and contact him personally — I owe him enormous gratitude for his decency and professionalism.
So, after half a year of exhausting correspondence, the only tangible result was obtaining the commission’s findings. As for holding anyone accountable — there was no progress at all. The system protects its own.
Perhaps the court could fix that? What about my lawsuit?
After sending the statement of claim on 25 June, I kept checking the court’s website almost daily, hoping to find some trace of it — in vain. Even against the background of numerous notorious, scandal-ridden, and corrupt Ukrainian courts, the one assigned to my case stood out. Yes, it was that “wolfish” court — the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, which by 2022 resembled more an organized criminal group than a judicial institution.
12.10.2022 - Arrived a response from KNU: finally, they provided the commission’s signed report and conclusions! I’m not sure what exactly happened, but judging by the name of the executor, I suspect that the integrity of the commission’s chair, O. Kolezhuk, once again played a decisive role. I had managed to find his email address and contact him personally — I owe him enormous gratitude for his decency and professionalism.
So, after half a year of exhausting correspondence, the only tangible result was obtaining the commission’s findings. As for holding anyone accountable — there was no progress at all. The system protects its own.
Perhaps the court could fix that? What about my lawsuit?
After sending the statement of claim on 25 June, I kept checking the court’s website almost daily, hoping to find some trace of it — in vain. Even against the background of numerous notorious, scandal-ridden, and corrupt Ukrainian courts, the one assigned to my case stood out. Yes, it was that “wolfish” court — the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, which by 2022 resembled more an organized criminal group than a judicial institution.
No one ever answered the listed phone numbers. On a forum, I eventually found a Viber number that supposedly provided case updates. The situation felt almost absurd — you contact what should be a serious state authority, but in the end, you’re talking to some anonymous person on a messaging app. I decided to ask about my claim and, after some time, received a reply in Russian: “Information is provided only by case number.” I asked how to find out my case number — and never heard back.
12.08.2022 - It became necessary to file a second lawsuit with the same court, identical to the first one. No information about the initial claim had appeared on the judiciary’s website, and further waiting was impossible, as the deadline for challenging the inaction was about to expire.
30.08.2022 - Quite unexpectedly, a notice about my second lawsuit appeared on the judiciary’s website, and that same day a ruling was issued returning it. The ruling didn’t upset me in the least, since it suggested that my first claim did exist somewhere in the court’s shadowy corridors and that a decision on it was still pending. No one knew why it was taking so long, but there was nothing to do but wait.
12.08.2022 - It became necessary to file a second lawsuit with the same court, identical to the first one. No information about the initial claim had appeared on the judiciary’s website, and further waiting was impossible, as the deadline for challenging the inaction was about to expire.
30.08.2022 - Quite unexpectedly, a notice about my second lawsuit appeared on the judiciary’s website, and that same day a ruling was issued returning it. The ruling didn’t upset me in the least, since it suggested that my first claim did exist somewhere in the court’s shadowy corridors and that a decision on it was still pending. No one knew why it was taking so long, but there was nothing to do but wait.
03.10.2022 - Just as I had nearly given up on my case, the proceedings were suddenly opened! At the same time, the court even granted a motion to obtain evidence, ordering the respondent to provide within fifteen days all documentation related to the disciplinary investigation. But the joy was short-lived. The court’s ruling was never carried out — and two months later, the court itself was dissolved.
15.12.2022 - The official date of the dissolution of the Kyiv District Administrative Court.
Why fight corruption in the courts and imprison corrupt judges when you can simply shut down the court and declare: “Look, there’s no more corruption”?
Why fight corruption in the construction sector and prosecute officials and developers when you can just dissolve the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate and, in the very same building with the very same officials, open a new agency — the State Inspectorate for Architecture and Urban Planning — and proclaim: “See, the old agency is gone, so the corruption is gone too”?
These are merely two examples of the grotesque ways Ukraine sometimes “fights” corruption — methods no less repulsive than the corruption itself in one of the world’s most corrupt countries. The plan was to create a new Kyiv City District Administrative Court to replace the dissolved one — apparently, with the same judges. But whether they forgot, or the judges scattered, the new court was never actually formed. Yet those same judges continue to receive huge salaries from the budget of a country at war.
And what about the court cases? What are ordinary people supposed to do — those still trying to find justice in their struggle against an arrogant bureaucratic machine? No one seemed to think about that either. I came across information on one website suggesting that the cases would eventually be transferred to the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court, whose jurisdiction covers the Kyiv region. But at the pace this “transfer” is happening, that won’t be completed until, at best, 2030. I had to put the lawsuit aside for a long time.
Two years later, I remembered it again — and found out that cases really were being transferred to the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court. The public register of court decisions shows that in 2022, this court issued 33,572 rulings, while the dissolved court had issued 68,955. In 2023, the number of rulings in the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court almost tripled — to 91,468. In 2024, it rose even higher, to 134,127.
And what about the court cases? What are ordinary people supposed to do — those still trying to find justice in their struggle against an arrogant bureaucratic machine? No one seemed to think about that either. I came across information on one website suggesting that the cases would eventually be transferred to the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court, whose jurisdiction covers the Kyiv region. But at the pace this “transfer” is happening, that won’t be completed until, at best, 2030. I had to put the lawsuit aside for a long time.
Two years later, I remembered it again — and found out that cases really were being transferred to the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court. The public register of court decisions shows that in 2022, this court issued 33,572 rulings, while the dissolved court had issued 68,955. In 2023, the number of rulings in the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court almost tripled — to 91,468. In 2024, it rose even higher, to 134,127.
What kind of access to justice or quality of judicial decisions can there possibly be in such a theater of absurdity? But at least, as they say, corruption has been defeated.
Still, something had to be done — the plagiarists were not going to hold himself accountable.
05.05.2024 - A new request was submitted to KNU asking for information on the results of the work of the Standing Ethics Committee of the Academic Council regarding the disciplinary proceedings against Dean Danyliuk. After all, nearly two years have passed since August 8, 2022, yet KNU’s promise to inform me of the Ethics Council’s findings has remained nothing more than a promise.
20.05.2024 - A shocking response from KNU: “The issue concerning the application of an administrative sanction against the third co-author, Danyliuk I.V., was to be considered separately after the end of the 2022 graduation period at the University. However, you filed a lawsuit regarding the violation of copyright. In accordance with Article 12 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Citizens’ Appeals’:
‘The provisions of this Law do not apply to the procedure for considering citizens’ statements and complaints established by the criminal procedural, civil procedural, and labor legislation, legislation on the protection of economic competition, as well as the Laws of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” and “On Access to Court Decisions,” the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine, and the Laws of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” and “On Enforcement Proceedings.” In view of the above, the University has suspended the consideration of your appeals until a court decision in the case is received.”
That’s incredible — KNU appears to have taken offense at my filing a lawsuit against Daniliuk!
Take note: back in 2022, their letters began with “Dear Mr. Leonid”; now it’s simply “Citizen Borysenko.”
But what connection does a civil lawsuit over the violation of my copyright have to providing information about whether Daniliuk has been held accountable? How can proceedings in a civil court possibly replace a right to submit appeals? Moreover, KNU is not even a defendant in that civil case — only a third party — meaning the case has no direct legal consequences for them whatsoever.
This response made me suspect that KNU actually wants to attain the status of defendant and bear financial responsibility for violating my rights. That’s easy enough to arrange — and I’ve already tried to do so (see the civil proceedings). The unprecedentedly cynical decision to “suspend the consideration of my appeals” must be publicly condemned and punished.
Once again, this reply reveals the true role of KNU’s leadership in this scandal. The creation of the commission and its honest work should not mislead anyone — it likely occurred despite the will of Danyliuk’s protectors: Rector Buhrov and his circle of sycophants.
04.06.2024 - A complaint to the Ombudsman requesting that the responsible officials at KNU be compelled to provide me with an official response on the outcome of the Standing Ethics Committee of the Academic Council regarding disciplinary action against Dean Daniliuk I.V.; and to initiate proceedings to hold accountable those who have for an extended period violated my right to access information.
05.07.2024 - A response from the Ombudsman: “Disagreement with the position expressed in a reply issued following the review of a citizen’s appeal—whether that position is taken by a public authority, an enterprise, an institution, an organization, or by their officials—cannot be considered a violation of an individual’s right to submit an appeal and receive a response. (…) In view of the above, including the competence and limits of the Commissioner’s authority, there are no legal grounds for taking response measures on the basis of your submission of 04 June 2024”.
It should be noted that the previous Ombudsperson, Ms. Denisova, examined complaints in considerable detail within the framework of the Law “On Citizens’ Appeals.” If a response was incomplete or inadequate, one could file a complaint, and the Ombudsperson’s Office would typically contact the relevant public authority to obtain clarification. It was precisely through numerous such complaints that I was able to obtain the commission’s findings in 2022.
The current Ombudsperson, Mr. Lubinets, does not concern himself with such “minor issues.” The message is essentially: we do not intervene in the substance of a reply; if you dislike it, challenge it in court. This effectively deprives citizens of any practical means to address bureaucratic inaction. After all, who is willing to spend years litigating—especially in administrative courts such as ours?
Some administrative judges also engage in similar sleight of hand. I once had a case where a judge dismissively wrote that I supposedly “wished to receive a particular answer,” and denied the claim. Fortunately, the appellate panel turned out to be competent: it recognized that the response had been incomplete and inadequate, and ordered the public authority to issue a new one. Sounds like a victory—proof that one can still find justice in the courts? Yet that decision was issued in 2020 and remains unenforced to this day. Why? Because securing enforcement of a court judgment in our country is the final circle of hell—one that no one can realistically overcome. At one point Ukraine even paralyzed the work of the European Court of Human Rights with a massive influx of complaints about non-enforcement of domestic judgments, but even the ECHR was unable to change anything in this regard.
05.07.2024 - A request to the MES to provide information on whether Danyliuk had ever been held accountable for plagiarism; to provide the results of the work of the KNU Academic Council’s Standing Ethics Committee regarding disciplinary action against Danyliuk; and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against KNU officials who have been violating my right to receive this information for more than two years.
10.07.2024 - A response from the MES: “We inform the applicant that the Ministry of Education and Science does not possess information on the matters raised."
And would it really have been impossible to pick up the phone and ask KNU? Apparently not—perhaps the salaries are so modest that one risks overexertion. And who exactly was I hoping to surprise with evidence of plagiarism by a KNU dean, when our own Minister of Education and Science is a plagiarist himself!
22.07.2024 - A request to the Kyiv District Administrative Court whether case No. 640/10082/22—transferred from a dissolved court—had been assigned for consideration in this court. I had previously written to this court about ten times on other matters, and not once did I receive a reply without the Ombudsperson’s intervention (and, of course, no one has ever been held accountable for this chronic inaction).
31.07.2024 - second lawsuit filed with the Kyiv District Administrative Court.
This time the respondents were KNU, MES, and the Ombudsperson. The statement of claim included the following demands:
1. To recognize as unlawful the inaction of Respondent 1 (KNU) with regard to:
- its failure to provide the requested information in response to my submission of 05.05.2024;
- its failure to review and resolve the issues raised in my submission of 05.05.2024 within the time limits established by law.
2. To recognize as unlawful the inaction of Respondent 2 (MES) with regard to:
- its failure to provide the requested information in response to my submission of 05.07.2024;
- its failure to review and resolve the issues raised in my submission of 05.07.2024 within the time limits established by law.
4. To oblige Respondent 1 (KNU) and Respondent 2 (MES) to provide information in response to my submissions of 05.05.2024 and 05.07.2024, namely:
- whether the Dean of the Faculty of Psychology of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ivan Vasylovych Danuliuk, has ever been held accountable for plagiarism (the theft and publication under his own name of the thesis results of L. H. Borysenko);
- the results of the work of the Standing Ethics Committee of the KNU Academic Council concerning the initiation of disciplinary action against Dean Danyliuk for plagiarism (the theft and publication under his own name of L. H. Borysenko’s thesis results).
5. To oblige Respondent 3 (the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights) to reconsider my complaint of 04.06.2024 and to open proceedings on that complaint.28.08.2024 - A request to the Ombudsperson to draw up administrative offence protocols against officials of the Kyiv District Administrative Court for failing to provide a response to my submission of 22.07.2024.
11.10.2024 - A response from the Kyiv District Administrative Court: My administrative case, I was told, had never been—and is not—pending before the Kyiv District Administrative Court, nor had it been scheduled for judicial review. And the court’s underlying message was unmistakable: given our low salaries and the fact that we supposedly work after hours and on weekends (!), please refrain from troubling us with your requests.
25.10.2024 - A shocking ruling by the Kyiv District Administrative Court returning my second lawsuit:
“In the statement of claim, the plaintiff has combined claims that are not connected either by their grounds or by the evidence submitted (…) By filing such a claim, the plaintiff seeks to resolve all existing disputed legal relations with the respondents at once (…) despite the fact that the grounds for these disputes are different and unrelated, and without considering that combining unrelated claims in this way would complicate the examination of the case.”
What?! I was in a state of complete shock when I read this piece of bureaucratic absurdity. Why do judges behave this way? The answer is obvious: because they do not want to examine anything at all. And they quietly envy the bribe-taking judges of the dissolved court—those judges are enjoying a cushy existence, drawing full salaries while doing absolutely nothing, and their cases are now being handled by other judges on top of their own workloads.05.11.2024 - Naturally, an appeal was filed against the ruling of 25.10.2024.
29.01.2025 - Unexpectedly, the first lawsuit showed signs of life. A notification appeared in the Electronic Court system stating that the case had been transferred… to the Luhansk District Administrative Court. At first I was alarmed, but then I saw that this court is currently located in Dnipro.
It turns out that in the summer of 2024, Parliament adopted a law under which cases from the dissolved court would no longer be transferred to the Kyiv District Administrative Court, but instead redistributed among other district administrative courts. Two years to arrive at the obvious!
So now the lawsuit I filed three years ago in a Kyiv court—dissolved in the name of fighting judicial corruption—will be heard by the Luhansk court, which is physically located in Dnipro…
I am still sincerely trying to comprehend certain aspects of our present reality—things that are both detrimental to one’s mental health to grasp and, frankly, impossible to make sense of at all.
03.04.2025 - A decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal. The appellate court allowed my appeal of 05.11.2025 and overturned the ruling that had returned the statement of claim.
28.04.2025 - Motion to recuse the judge. How is he supposed to continue hearing the case after issuing rulings of that nature?
12.05.2025 і 13.05.2025 - two rulings (1, 2) denying the motion for recusal.
15.05.2025 - ruling on self-recusal. Once again—why do judges behave like this? First he indulges his ego and goes through every procedural stage to deny recusal, and then, with great solemnity, grants himself a self-recusal. Remarkable. After fifteen years of dealing with Ukrainian judges, I am increasingly inclined to suspect that they belong to some entirely different biological species—there is little evidence of Homo sapiens in their behavior.
21.05.2025 - The newly assigned panel opened proceedings in the case. The respondents were given 15 days to submit their responses to the statement of claim.
12.05.2025 і 13.05.2025 - two rulings (1, 2) denying the motion for recusal.
15.05.2025 - ruling on self-recusal. Once again—why do judges behave like this? First he indulges his ego and goes through every procedural stage to deny recusal, and then, with great solemnity, grants himself a self-recusal. Remarkable. After fifteen years of dealing with Ukrainian judges, I am increasingly inclined to suspect that they belong to some entirely different biological species—there is little evidence of Homo sapiens in their behavior.
21.05.2025 - The newly assigned panel opened proceedings in the case. The respondents were given 15 days to submit their responses to the statement of claim.
23.06.2025 - A response from the MES arrived, submitted after the procedural deadline. And what were the reasons for missing the deadline? They are, apparently, overwhelmed—poor things—with work, and therefore learned about the opening of proceedings only on 15 June. Surprising that they didn’t mention the war. For the past three years, virtually every idle state functionary has blamed their inaction on the war. I wonder whether the court will restore the deadline.
04.07.2025 - KNU's response. They do not even acknowledge missing the deadline; instead, they claim they received the ruling on the opening of proceedings only on 25.06.2025 via the Electronic Court system (despite the ruling having been delivered to the system on 21.05.2025). They request that the claim be dismissed, asserting that a response to my submission had in fact been provided.
To be continued…
