THE CONCEPT OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR APPLICATION IN CIVIL AND ECONOMIC PROCEEDINGS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.1.2020_14

Keywords:

special knowledge, civil proceedings, economic proceedings, forensic expert, proof.

Abstract

It is emphasized that the need to involve specialists who possess special knowledge appears when the participants of civil and economic proceedings lack their own capabilities and knowledge, available methods and technical means of the entity cognition of such an activity, skills in application of such means and methods are insufficient for the effective collection, analysis, evaluation and use of information, establishment of specific facts, identification of hidden links, properties, features of the studied objects, performance of other tasks. Taking into account the fact that the meaning of the term special knowledge can be most fully disclosed only in connection with the elements of the proof procedure in civil or economic proceedings, the interpretation of the concept special knowledge was analyzed by scientists.

 It is emphasized that a number of scientific papers, including dissertations, is devoted to consideration, analysis, and definition of the essence of the term special knowledge through disclosing its content. Therefore, the article highlighted particular positions of scientists and authors’ opinions regarding their point of view, the position of scientists in which the criteria considered that are used while studying and defining the essence of the concept special knowledge is suggested. It is stressed that the legal limits of the use of special knowledge in civil and economic proceedings are determined by the procedural law and court, taking into consideration the rules of correspondence, admissibility, reliability and sufficiency of evidence to resolve a particular civil case or commercial dispute. It is noted that the requirements for the above criteria are ensured in the procedural legislation and their detailed characteristics are given. It is established that the grounds for the use of special knowledge are formalized and include substantive and procedural grounds, in addition, their application requires the court to correctly determine the subject of proof in the case and identify the need to use special knowledge and skills of knowledgeable persons. The authors note that in economic and civil proceedings attention is focused on different purposes of involving specialists and forensic experts and, accordingly, on differences in procedural rights and responsibilities, as well as on the procedural significance of the results of such specialists’ use of their special knowledge.

References

Bilukha, M. T. (2004). Sudovo-bukhhalterska ekspertyza: pidruchn. Kyiv [in Ukrainian]. Bychkova, S. S. (2005). Ekspertyza v tsyvilnomu protsesi Ukrainy (Dys. kand. yuryd. nauk. 12.00.03. Kyiv. Instytut derzhavy i prava im. V. M. Koretskoho NAN

Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].

Halahan, V. I. (2003). Pravovi ta kryminalistychni problemy vdoskonalennia kryminal-no-protsesualnoi diialnosti (na materialakh orhaniv vnutrishnikh sprav Ukrainy) (Dys. doktora yuryd. nauk: 12.00.09). Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Hospodarskyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy (1992): Zakon Ukrainy vid 06.11.1991

№ 1798-KhII (zi zminamy ta dopovnenniamy) Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (VVR), № 6, st. 56 [in Ukrainian].

Ivchenko, A.O. (2003). Tlumachnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy. Kharkiv: Folio [in Ukrainian].

Karpechkin, P. (2010). Shchodo mezh spetsialnykh znan pry provedenni sudovoi eksper-tyzy u hospodarskomu protsesi. Visnyk prokuratury. № 3 (105) [in Ukrainian].
Kovalenko, V. V. (2004). Aktualni problemy zastosuvannia naukovo-tekhnichnykh zasobiv spetsialistamy pry provadzhenni slidchykh dii. (Candidatede’s thesis: 12.00.09). Luhansk [in Ukrainian].

Kucher, T. M. (2012). Spivvidnoshennia vysnovkiv eksperta ta spetsialista yak zasobiv dokazuvannia v tsyvilnomu protsesi: pytannia teorii ta praktyky. Visnyk Vyshchoi rady yustytsii, 2 (10). [in Ukrainian].

Lisovyi, V. V. (2012). Formy i znachennia vykorystannia spetsialnykh ekonomichnykh znan v tsyvilnomu i hospodarskomu protsesi. Visnyk ZhDTU: Ekonomika, up-ravlinnia, administruvannia. № 1 (59) ch. 2. URL: http://ven.ztu.edu.ua/article/ view/47540 (data zvernennia 25.05.2020) [in Ukrainian].
Orlov, Ju. K. (1982). Proizvodstvo jekspertizy v ugolovnom processe: ucheb. posobie.

Moscow: VJuZI [in Russian].

Petrova, I. A. (2016). Osoblyvosti provadzhennia sudovo-tovaroznavchykh ekspertyz u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi. Scientific Journal «ScienceRise». № 7/1(24) [in Ukrainian].

Pyrih I. V. (2006). Teoriia i praktyka vykorystannia spetsialnykh znan pry rozsliduvanni rozkradan vantazhiv na zaliznychnomu transporti. (Extended abstract of candi-date’s thesis: spets. 12.00.09). Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Revaka, V. M. (2006). Formy vykorystannia spetsialnykh piznan v dosudovomu provadzhenni. (Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis: spets. 12.00.09). Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].

Sahnova ,T. V. (2000). Sudebnaja jekspertiza. Moscow: Gorodec [in Russian].

Selivanov, A. (2002). Problema zaprovadzhennia v sudovyi protses pravovoi ekspertyzy.

Pravo Ukrainy. № 8. [in Ukrainian].

Semenov, V. V. (2006). Spetsialni znannia v rozsliduvanni zlochyniv (zmist, orhanizatsi-ia vykorystannia). (Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis: spets. 12.00.09) [in Ukrainian].

Shapiro, V. S. (2018). Problemni aspekty uchasti eksperta v tsyvilnomu protsesi. Pravovi horyzonty. 13(26) [in Ukrainian].

Sherstiuk, V. M. (2007). Orhanizatsiino-pravovi ta moralno-psykholohichni zasady su-dovo-ekspertnoi diialnosti. (Dys. kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.09). Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].

Simakova-Yefremian, E. B. (2004). Problemy sudovo-ekspertnoi diialnosti v normakh chynnoho zakonodavstva Ukrainy. Pravo Ukrainy. № 6 [in Ukrainian].

Sorokotjagina, D. A. (2006). Sudebnaja jekspertiza: ucheb. posobie. Rostov-na-Donu:

Feniks [in Russian].

Sudova ekspertyza (2004): normat.-pravove rehuliuvannia ta nauk. koment.: navch.-dovidk. posib. Uklad. Hroshevyi Yu. M., Tsymbal M. L., Simakova-Yefre­ mian E. B. ta in. Kharkiv: Odissei [in Ukrainian].

Treushnikov, M. K. (2005). Sudebnye dokazatel’stva. 4-e izd., pererab. i dop. Moscow:

Gorodec [in Russian].

Tsyvilnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 18.03.2004. № 1618-VI (zi zminamy ta dopovnenniamy) Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (VVR), 2004, № 40-41, 42, st. 492 [in Ukrainian].

Vasylieva-Shalamova, Zh. V. (2009) Sudova ekspertyza v tsyvilnomu protsesi. (Dys. kand. yuryd. nauk. 12.00.03) Kyiv. Kyivskyi natsionalnyi universytet imeni Tarasa Shevchenka [in Ukrainian].

Vasylieva-Shalamova, Zh. V. (2008). Zastosuvannia spetsialnykh znan v tsyvilnomu pro-tsesi. Aktualni pytannia derzhavotvorennia v Ukraini: materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf. (24-25 kvit. 2008 r., m. Kyiv). Kyiv. nats. un-t im. T. Shevchenka, Yuryd. f-t. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Vlasov, A. A. (2003). Grazhdanskoe processual’noe pravo: uchebnik. Moscow: TK Velbi [in Russian].

Zinin, A. M. (2002). Sudebnaja jekspertiza: uchebnik. Moscow: Jurajt. Pravo i zakon [in Russian].

Published

2020-06-01

How to Cite

Fesiunin, V., Kurdes, E., & Sviridova, L. (2020). THE CONCEPT OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR APPLICATION IN CIVIL AND ECONOMIC PROCEEDINGS. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 21(1), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.1.2020_14

Issue

Section

GENERAL REGULATIONS OF FORENSIC EXAMINATION