Oleksandr Markushyn, in his attempt to retain the position of Irpin mayor, flooded administrative courts of various levels with dozens of lawsuits — both from himself and from third parties. His lawyers tried not only to paralyze the work of the legal department of the Irpin City Council’s executive committee but also engaged in procedural manipulations in an effort to “land” cases with favorable judges. However, whether due to constant misfortune or sheer incompetence of his legal team, Markushyn and his third-party plaintiffs lost every single case.
Markushyn and his allies from his former mayoralty suffered defeats in a number of cases before the Kyiv District Administrative Court (KDAC). In particular, the court rejected Markushyn’s request for injunctive relief in case No. 320/24810/25 dated May 19, 2025, filed against the acting mayor of Irpin, Anzhela Makeeva.
The same court also denied injunctions sought by third parties acting on Markushyn’s behalf, who tried to block a series of administrative decisions. Among them were: Ihor Husak in case No. 320/24791/25 (May 19, 2025), Kostiantyn Yaremenko in case No. 320/24807/25, Olena Pryimak in case No. 320/24798/25, Tetiana Tsarenok in case No. 320/24802/25, and Volodymyr Parkhoniuk in case No. 320/27521/25 (June 3, 2025).
Realizing that he was getting nowhere in Kyiv, Markushyn attempted to overturn a number of Irpin city decisions through the courts in Odesa, citing the local registration of one of the parties as grounds for jurisdiction. On June 16, 2025, the panel of judges of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal denied Markushyn in case No. 420/13676/25. Earlier, on May 21, 2025, the Odesa District Administrative Court had rejected both his requests for injunctive relief and the case on the merits. The same court also dismissed claims filed by Anastasiia Cherkas in case No. 420/23752/25 (July 17, 2025). Co-plaintiffs included Anastasiia Cherkas, Olena Sevastyanova, Yuliia Yurchenko, Olha Oliinych, Vitalii Kozhokar, Volodymyr Parkhoniuk, and Ivan Kipish.
Additional rejections followed in cases No. 420/15130/25 (May 15, 2025), No. 420/15002/25 (May 14, 2025), and No. 420/14004/25 (May 7, 2025).
It should be recalled that on January 23, 2025, investigators from the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) served Markushyn with a notice of suspicion under Part 2 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (organization of illegal transportation of persons across the state border).
On January 24, the Pechersk District Court imposed a pre-trial detention measure — custody until March 22 with the possibility of bail set at 30 million UAH.
On January 27, the court suspended Markushyn from his position as mayor of Irpin. On February 3, the Kyiv Court of Appeal replaced the measure with 24-hour house arrest, later easing it on April 8 to nighttime house arrest from 23:00 to 06:00.
On July 29, the Irpin City Council prematurely terminated Markushyn’s powers. A vote of no confidence was supported by 28 deputies, with only one voting against.
Currently, Markushyn is preparing to challenge the council’s decision of no confidence. To do so, he is seeking out scandal-prone lawyers with questionable reputations and is planning to bypass the Kyiv District Administrative Court by filing lawsuits in other regions of Ukraine. Reportedly, he is attempting to involve his business partner, Serhii Badrudinov, in this process. These attempts are already under close monitoring by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).
On August 8, 2025, the Pechersk Court of Kyiv did not extend Markushyn’s suspension from office, noting that the court cannot suspend a person from a position they no longer hold. The court explained its decision by stating that Markushyn’s mayoral powers had already been terminated by the council’s vote of no confidence.
Since January 24, 2025, he had been held in a pre-trial detention center and later spent several months under nighttime house arrest.
Markushyn remains a figure in dozens of criminal investigations led by the National Police, Bucha District Prosecutor’s Office, and the State Bureau of Investigation. These cases concern abduction, embezzlement of budget funds, payroll schemes, manipulations with developers’ contributions, and channeling public money to affiliated companies.