Politics or law: what is more in the approaches of public expert monopoly?

Authors

  • Оксана Михайлівна Калужна Львівський національний університет імені Івана Франка, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.140.123451

Keywords:

public expert institutions, monopoly of public expert institutions

Abstract

The main aim of the article is to encourage the reader to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of a public expert monopoly in conducting forensic expertise. In such article the obvious advantages of conducting forensic expertise by public expert institutions are stated in order to get scientifically substantiated and based on modern data of science and technology practice of conducting forensic expertise. The practice includes developed network of public expert institutions in the regions, a wide range of forensic expertise being conducted, research departments of state expert institutions, system of advancement of forensic experts; system of development of new and improvement of existing expert methods; informational records and collections in the DNDEKTS and NDECTS system at the head offices of the NP in the regions and in the city of Kyiv; state financing and provision of technical tools and materials with expert research etc.

At the same time, the disadvantages of such a model of the organization of judicial expert justice’s support are stated: the lack of competition among court experts; the abuse in the form of giving deliberately false conclusions to cover up someone’s misuse or concealing crimes; the limitation of the parties of the court proceedings in the dispositive right to provide evidences at one’s one discretion; the artificial limitation of possibilities to discover the circumstances of the proceedings (using of all possibilities to establish the truth in the case).

It is concluded that the model of judicial expert support of legal proceedings in Ukraine, that is established by «judicial reform» (Law No. 2147-VIII in the wording that will come into force on March 18, 2018) is a milestone in its historical development, which certainly should be modified depending on its effectiveness and the demand of the society, public, professional and state institutions. So public forensic expert monopoly is not an ideal model of forensic expert support of justice because of corporate and political interests, corruption component, abuse of forensic experts etc. Therefore, it will undergo a review and transformation.

Author Biography

Оксана Михайлівна Калужна, Львівський національний університет імені Івана Франка

candidate of juridical sciences, associate professor of

criminal procedural law and criminalistics department

Ivan Franko National University of Lviv

References

Osnovy sudovoji expertyzy. (2016). [The basis of forensic examination]. Holovchenko, L, Losovyj, A, Simakova-Jefremjan, E. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].

Yevropejskyj sud z prav ludyny pryznachyv derzavi vyplatyty odnu z najvyschyh kompensacij fizychnij osobi za vsju istoriju Ukrainy [The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the state to pay one of the highest compensations of an individual in the history ofUkraine]. URL: https://helsinki.org.ua/articles/ukrajina-zaplatyt-ponad-dva-miljony-pensionertsi-za-vbyvstvo-jiji-syna-v-politsiji [in Ukrainian]

ESPL zobov’yazav Ukrainu vyplatyty 72 tys. euro cherez pobyttya polcejsjkymy cholovika. (2017). [The ECHR has ordered Ukraineto pay 72 thousand euros due to beatings of police men]. Ukrainske pravo – Ukrainian law. 18 lyp. URL: http://ukrainepravo.com/news/international/-spl-zobov-yazav-ukrainu-viplatiti-72-tis-vro-cherez-pobittya-politseyskimi-cholovika [in Ukrainian].

Rishennja ESPL u spravi «Nina Kutcenko proty Ukrainy» 18.07.2017 [The decision of the ECtHR in the case of «Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine» dated July 18, 2017]. Medychne pravo – Medical Law. 19 lyp. URL: http://medicallaw.org.ua/spisok-novin/novina/article/rishennja-jespl-u-spravi-nina-kucenko-proti-ukrajini-1807/ [in Ukrainian].

Rishennja ESPL u spravi «Nechyphoruk i Yonkalo proty Ukrainy» 21.04.2011. [The decisions of the ECtHR in the case of «Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine» 21.04.2011.]. Data onovlennia: 12.02.2018. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_683/page [in Ukrainian].

Pojasnjuvaljna zapyska do proektu Zakonu Ukrainy «Pro vnesennja zmin do Hospodarsjkoho procesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy, Cyviljnoho procesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy, Kodeksu administratyvnoho sudochynstva ta inshyh zakonodavchyh aktiv» [6. Explanatory note to the draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine and other legislative acts”]. Data onovlennia: 12.02.2018. URL: http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=61415 [in Ukrainian].

Zakon Ukrainy «Pro sudovu expertyzu»vid 25.02.1994 № 4038а-XII v redakciji vid 20.01.2018 № 2249-VIII [The Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Examination” of 25.02.1994 in the wording of 20.01.2018]. Data onovlennia: 12.02.2018. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4038-12 [in Ukrainian].

Zakydy na adresu NABU pro bezpidstavnist obvynuvachen u spravi «chornoyi buhgalteriy» – manipulatyvni. (2016). [Disputes to NABU on the groundlessness of the charges in the case of “black bookkeeping” – manipulative]. URL: https://nabu.gov.ua/novyny/zakydy-na-adresu-nabu-pro-bezpidstavnist-obvynuvachen-u-spravi-chornoyi-buhgalteriyi. 29 berez. [in Ukrainian].

Povtorna ekspertiza zasvidchila dostovirnist pidpisiv golovi tsvk v ambarniy kniz. (2017). [Repeated examination confirmed the authenticity of the signatures of the head of the CEC in the “barn book”]. Protokol – Protocol. 16 berez. URL: http://protokol.com.ua/ru/povtorna_ekspertiza_zasvidchila_dostovirnist_pidpisiv_golovi_tsvk_v_ambarniy_knizi/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email [in Ukrainian].

Dynamika suspilno-politychnyh pohladiv v Ukraini (14 veresnja – 20 zovtnja 2017 r.): doslidzennja GfK Ukraine na zamovlennja Miznarodnoho Pespublikansjkoho Instytutu [Dynamics of socio-political views in Ukraine (September 14 – October 20, 2017): Study of GfK Ukraine commissioned by the International Republican Institute]. URL: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21ABXwgwif1p9bnUA&cid=90F5177AC8E0B6F2&id=90F5177AC8E0B6F2%21114&parId=root&o=OneUp [in Ukrainian].

Problemy implementaciji zmin do Konstytuciji Ukrainy schodo pravosuddja ta statusu Konstytucijnogo Sudu Ukrainy. (2017). [Problems of implementation of changes to the Constitution of Ukraine regarding justice and the status of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine]. Kyjiv: «Zapovit» URL: http://razumkov.org.ua/uploads/article/2017_Sud_reform.pdf [in Ukrainian].

Najbilsh korumpovanyvy derzavnyvy organavy je sudy – doslidzennja [The most corrupt government bodies are courts of inquiry]. URL: https://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2018/01/29/633500/ [in Ukrainian].

Published

2018-03-13

How to Cite

Калужна, О. М. (2018). Politics or law: what is more in the approaches of public expert monopoly?. Problems of Legality, (140), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.140.123451

Issue

Section

JUDICIARY