Conducting a Forensic Examination as Part of Measures to Secure Evidence Prior to Filing a Lawsuit in Administrative Proceedings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.2.2026.05Keywords:
risk of loss of evidence; forensic examination; application for evidence provision; administrative proceedings; territorial jurisdiction; court of first instance; equality of parties; obligation to file statement of claim; evidence obtained in accordance with law; procedural relations outside proceedings.Abstract
Despite high level of development of interdisciplinary procedural evidence doctrine, rather narrow aspects; appointment of an expert examination as a way of securing evidence before commencement of proceedings in administrative case, difference between territorial jurisdiction and the authority to secure evidence by its location have not been the subject of attention of researchers of administrative proceedings or forensic researches, at least recently. In particular, there are no clear comments on forensic research on issues that will only be the subject of judicial consideration. At the same time, the theoretical potential of the issue of securing evidence before the commencement of administrative proceedings seems to be high determined the purpose of this article, namely: investigate specified procedural mechanism through the prism of appointment of forensic examination by the court in proceedings that have not yet been initiated by any court. The following tasks are subordinate to this purpose: identify the legislative grounds for such a court decision, to determine nature of the court’s authority to secure such evidence, including existence of relevant rights in a general local court. Using a special legal dogmatic method, systematic interpretation and comparative analysis, it was found that pre-litigation provision of evidence does not require a clearly formulated subject of the dispute, and evidence obtained through such provision, including forensic expert conclusions can be used outside the administrative proceedings (even in case of violation of requirement to further file a claim), since the actual receipt of evidence was carried out in accordance with the law. Conclusions were drawn according to which satisfaction of the evidentiary needs of a potential plaintiff by the courts of first instance does not overlap with the concept of subject or territorial jurisdiction and is a unique phenomenon that is only formally, but not substantively, covered by instance jurisdiction.
References
Bernaziuk, Ya. (2023). Prezumptsii v pravi: vydy ta znachennia [Presumptions in Law: Types and Meanings] / Natsionalna shkola suddiv Ukrainy. Prohrama pidhotovky ta pidvyshchennia rivnia kvalifikatsii za standartyzovanoiu prohramoiu pomichnykiv suddiv okruzhnykh ta apeliatsiinykh administratyvnykh sudiv // Verkhovnyi sud : ofits. vebsait. URL: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/supreme/2023_prezent/presumption_bernaziuk.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Gordieiev, V. V. (2022). Subyekty dokazuvannya v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi Ukrayiny [The Subjects of Proving in the Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine]. Forum Prava. № 72 (1). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5529542 [in Ukrainian].
Hodz, V. S., Riabenko, I. Yu. (2024). Stroky u sudovii ekspertyzi: problemni pytannia ta shliakhy yikh vyrishennia [Terms in forensic examination: problematic issues and ways to solve them]. Kryminalistyka i sudova ekspertyza. Vyp. 69. DOI: 10.33994/kndise.2024.69.01 [in Ukrainian].
Kalmykova, Ya. S. (2012). Nalezhnist ta dopustymist dokaziv v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi [Relevance and admissibility of evidence in administrative proceedings]. Yurydychna osin 2012 roku : zb. tez dop. ta nauk. povidoml. uchasn. vseukr. nauk.-prakt. konf. molod. uchen. ta zdobuv. (Kharkiv, 13.11.2012). Kharkiv. URL: https://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/server/api/core/bitstreams/421d0c9a-1356-4e51-a201-832606b7c0f5/content [in Ukrainian].
Khaliuzov, Ye. (2025). Ekspertnyi vysnovok v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi [Expert Report in Administrative Proceedings]. Zovnishnia torhivlia: ekonomika, finansy, pravo. № 2. DOI: 10.31617/3.2025(139)08 [in Ukrainian].
Khaliuzov, Ye. (2025). Pryznachennia ekspertyzy sudom yak pidstava dlia pidhotovky vysnovku eksperta v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi [Court-Appointed Forensic Examination as a Basis for Preparing an Expert Report in Administrative Proceedings]. Pravova derzhava. № 58. DOI: 10.18524/2411-2054.2025.58.330998 [in Ukrainian].
Kolesnikova, M. V. (2024). Dokazy ta dokazuvannia v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi [Evidence and proof in administrative procee dings]. Analitychno-porivnialne pravoznavstvo. № 4. DOI: 10.24144/2788-6018.2024.04.61 [in Ukrainian].
Kolpakov, V., Hordieiev, V. (2014). Pryntsyp ofitsiinoho z’iasuvannia vsikh obstavyn u spravi v systemi pryntsypiv administratyvnoho sudochynstva [Principle of official clarification of all circumstances in the case in the system of principles of administrative proceedings]. Pravo Ukrainy. № 3 [in Ukrainian].
Kozynets, I. H., Kravchenko V. Ya. (2021). Okremi pytannia dokaziv ta dokazuvannia v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi na suchasnomu etapi [Selected Issues of Evidence and Discovery in Administrative Proceedings at the Current Stage]. Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal. № 2. DOI: 10.32782/2524-0374/2021-2/40 [in Ukrainian].
Liezin, Ye. (2017). Poniattia i zmist zabezpechennia dokaziv u tsyvilnomu protsesi Ukrainy [The Concept and Content of Providing Evidence in the Civil Process in Ukraine]. Jurnalul Juridic Național: Teorie şi Practică. Dec. URL: https://surl.li/ceddux [in Ukrainian].
Melnyk, M. P. (2010). Poniattia dokaziv u administratyvnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy [Concept of evidence in administrative proceedings in Ukraine]. Derzhava i pravo. Vyp. 48. URL: https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/server/api/core/bitstreams/5d194b28-eaf6-4514-8e61-f14fca05ace5/content [in Ukrainian].
Rekunenko, T. O. (2019). Dokazuvannia v protsesi rozghliadu sprav pro administratyvne pravoporushennia [Evidence in the process of considering cases of administrative offenses]. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo. № 3. URL: http://pgp-journal.kiev.ua/archive/2019/3/32.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Riabovol, L. T. (2020). Pryntsyp ofitsiinoho z’iasuvannia vsikh obstavyn u spravi: pytannia teorii ta praktyky [Principle of official clarifications of all circumstances in the case: issues of theory and practice]. Visnyk Zaporizkoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Yurydychni nauky. № 3. DOI: 10.26661/2616-9444-2020-3-16 [in Ukrainian].
Sytnykov, O. (2025). Kryterii otsinky pravomirnosti rishen, dii chy bezdiialnosti sub’iekta vladnykh povnovazhen [Criteria for assessing the legality of decisions, actions or omissions of the subject of power] / Advokat Post : vebsait. URL: https://advokatpost.com/kryterii-otsinky-pravomirnosti-rish-en-dij-chy-bezdiialnosti-sub-iekta-vlad-nykh-povnovazhen-advokat-sytnykov/ [in Ukrainian].
Zelinska, Ya. (2024). Osoblyvosti dokazuvannia v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi [Peculiarities of proof in administrative proceedings]. Visnyk Natsionalnoi asotsiatsii advokativ Ukrainy. № 3 (99). URL: https://unba.org.ua/assets/uploads/news/vidannya/2024-04-01-vidannya-v-snik-3-2024_660ab-d5a402f3.pdf [in Ukrainian].
