FORENSIC EXAMINATION IN CIVIL AND ECONOMIC PROCEEDINGS AS A SEPARATE FORM OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE USE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.1.2020_08Keywords:
forensic examination, special knowledge, civil proceedings, economic proceedings, procedural form.Abstract
The attention in the article is drawn to the fact that despite the obvious need to bring special knowledge into civil and economic procedural proof, this process is progressing rather slowly as the modern practice of using special knowledge constantly reveals gaps and collisions in procedural norms. Defining forensic science as a separate form of using special knowledge, the article focuses on the interpretation of the “special knowledge” concept by scientists, and concludes that scientific papers explicitly indicate that special knowledge is used by a limited number of specialists, they are inherent in a particular science; could be obtained in the process of training, special training and are applied according to the requirements of current legislation.
It is noted that a separate procedural form of special knowledge application is the results of forensic examinations, i.e. for forensic examination conduct it is necessary to involve a specialist who, according to the current legislation, possesses the required sum of special knowledge, which allows him to competently conduct measures that are his functional responsibilities − to provide a forensic report based on their own special, professional knowledge. It is argued that according to the evidence classification, the forensic opinion belongs to personal sources of evidence and, if there are no grounded reasons for disagreement with it, should be taken for granted and used in evidence as a result of research work of an authoritative specialist. It is also emphasized that the forensic report, as an independent forensic evidence in the case, can only be the result of forensic examination, appointed and conducted in strict accordance with the requirements of economic or civil procedural law, the signs by which the forensic report differs from other means of evidence are described. The features that distinguish forensic examination from examinations carried out in other areas of human activity are outlined. It is established that the means of verifying a forensic report in civil and economic proceedings are forensic expert testimony, other evidence provided by the procedure participants and comparing the report with the latter, as well as stressed that the distinction between verification and evaluation of evidence should be conducted according to individual criteria, their characteristic is given.
References
Hospodarskyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 06.11.1991 № 1798-ХII (zi zminamy ta dopovnenniamy) Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (VVR), 1992, № 6, st. 56. [in Ukrainian].
Eisman, A. A. (1967). Zakliuchenie eksperta. Struktura i nauchnoe obosnovani. Moskva: Iuridicheskaia lіteratura. [in Russian].
Kyrychenko, I. A. (2005). Sudova ekspertyza obiektiv prava intelektualnoi vlasnosti: navch. posibn. Kyiv. In-t intel. vlasn. i prava. [in Ukrainian].
Lisovyi, V. V. (2012). Formy i znachennia vykorystannia spetsialnykh ekonomichnykh znan v tsyvilnomu i hospodarskomu protsesi. Visnyk ZhDTU: Ekonomika, upravlinnia, administruvannia. № 1 (59) ch. 2 URL: http://ven.ztu.edu.ua/article/ view/47540 (data zvernennia 29.05.2020). [in Ukrainian].
Pro sudovu ekspertyzu: zakon Ukrainy vid 25.02.1994 r. № 4038-XII. (zi zminamy ta dopovnenniamy). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (VVR). № 28. St. 232. [in Ukrainian].
Shabvrovskyi, B. V. (2019) Perevirka dokaziv u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy (Dys.
kand. yuryd. nauk. Ostroh. Lvivskyi natsionalnyi universytet imeni Ivana Franka. Lviv [in Ukrainian].
Sorokotiagina, D. A. (2006) Sudebnaia ekspertiza: ucheb. posobie. Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks [in Russian].
Vlasov, A.A. (2003) Grazhdanskoe protcessualnoe pravo: ucheb. Moscow: TK Vebli [in Russian].
Zaiats, O., Skrynkovskyi, R. (2019). Problemni aspekty uchasti eksperta u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy. Traektoriâ Nauki. Vol. 5. No 9 [in Ukrainian].
