Oleksandr Khrystov

  Vladyslav Lipynskyi


The article is devoted to the economic and legal comparative analysis of judicial expert activities. The issues concerning the problems of quality assurance of the expert activities, harmonization and convergence of the understanding of the possibilities of judicial economic expertise in solving problems of justice, taking into account economic conditions. As a first step to creating a general theoretical development for judicial economic expertise could be the creation of a list of vocabulary of basic terms of forensic economic expertise. The legislation of Ukraine, which regulates activities of forensic experts, is as follows: the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Examination”, “Instruction on Conducting Forensic Examination”, “Procedure for Certification and Official Registration of Forensic Examinations Procedure”, “Some Issues of Provision of Paid Services by Research Institutions on Forensic Examination of the Ministry of Justice”, “On Approval of the Instructions on Procedure and Amount of Reimbursement and Compensation to Individuals Invited by Inquiry Agencies, Pretrial Investigation Agencies, Procuracy, Courts or Authorities that Oversee Cases of Administrative Violations, and Payments to Governmental Research Institutions on Forensic Examination for Expert and Specialized Services Provided by their Employees” approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and a set of multi-agency orders. The common features include the existence of department specialized forensic expert institutions, which are entrusted to conduct an examination as follows: specialized research institutes of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the Ministry of Healthcare, expert services of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Security Service of Ukraine, etc. Moreover, forensic examinations, which are often arranged in criminal proceedings and sometimes in administrative proceedings, can be carried out exclusively by forensic experts who are employees of such institutions. At the same time, the law provides for the possibility of carrying out forensic expert activity on a business basis, on the ground of special authorization, as well as onetime agreements, by citizens who have the qualification of a forensic expert, which is often used in administrative proceedings. Neither a judge nor any other persons, who are involved in administrative or criminal procedures, have this kind of expert knowledge. By virtue of the knowledge that is converted by forensic experts in the source of evidence, important issues of a case are resolved that would be impossible without forensic expertise. In legal science, there is an idea that expert activity, due to its specificity, is much wider than expert procedure regardless of the fact whether it is carried out in administrative or criminal procedures.

How to Cite

Article views: 432 | PDF Downloads: 139



forensic expert activity, administrative procedures, criminal procedures, law, legislation


Shcherbakovskyi, M. H. (2008). Sudova ekspertolohiia: navchalnyi posibnyk [Forensic expertology: a textbook]. Kharkiv: KNUIA. (in Ukrainian)

Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy (1996). Konstytutsiia Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 28 chervnia 1996 r. № 254k/96-VR (zi zminamy ta dopovnenniamy) [The Constitution of Ukraine: the Law of Ukraine dated June 26, 1996 № 254к/96-ВР (as amended)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, no. 30, art. 141.

Romanenko, L. M. (2013). Ekspertyza v administratyvnomu protsesi [Expert examination in administrative process] (PhD Thesis). Kyiv: State Scientific Research Institute of MIA.

Dzhafarova, M. V. (2013). Okremi vydy ekspertyz v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy [Individual types of expert examinations in administrative legal proceedings of Ukraine]. Pravo i bezpeka, 1(48), 57–61.

Kravchuk, T. O. (2016). Otsinka vysnovku eksperta ta yoho dokazove znachennia v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy [Assessment of expert report and its eveidentiary value in administrative legal proceedings of Ukraine]. Innovative solutions in modern science, 6(6). Retrieved from:

Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy (2005). Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 6 lypnia 2005 r. № 2747-IV (zi zminamy ta dopovnenniamy) [Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine: the Law of Ukraine dated July 6, 2005 № 2747-IV (as amended)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, no. 35–37, art. 446.

Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy (2013). Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 13 kvitnia 2012 r. № 4651-VI (zi zminamy ta dopovnenniamy) [Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: the Law of Ukraine dated April 13, 2012 № 4651-VI (as amended)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, no. 9–13, art. 88.

Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy (1994). Pro zabezpechennia bezpeky osib, yaki berut uchast u kryminalnomu sudochynstvi: Zakon Ukrainy vid 23 hrudnia 1993 r. № 3782-XII (zi zminamy ta dopovnenniamy) [On Protection of Persons Involved in Criminal Proceedings: the Law of Ukraine dated December 23, 1993 № 3782-XII (as amended)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, no. 11, art. 51.

Melnik, S. L. (2005). Aktualnye voprosy ekspertnoj iniciativy [Topical issues of expert initiative] (PhD Thesis). Chelyabinsk.

Yanchuk, O. Iu. (2009). Sudova ekspertyza v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi [Forensic examination in administrative legal proceedings]. Visnyk Akademii advokatury Ukrainy, 2(15), 145–150.

Honcharenko, V. H. (2010). Ekspertyzy u sudovii praktytsi [Forensic examinations in judicial practice]. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter. (in Ukrainian)

Syzonenko, A. S. (2003). Nedopustymist dokaziv u kryminalnomu sudochynstvi [Inadmissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings]. Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy, 5(39), 57–59.

Belkin, A. R. (1999). Teoriya dokazyvaniya [Evidence theory]. Moscow: Norma. (in Russian)

Kovalenko, Ye. H. (2011). Naukovi zasady kryminalno-protsesualnoho dokazuvannia: monohrafiia [Scientific fundamentals of criminal procedure proving: a monograph]. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter.

Varfolomeieva, T. V., Honcharenko, V. H., Boiarov, V. I., Honcharenko, S. V., Popeliushko, V. O. (2011). Kryminalistyka. Akademichnyi kurs: pidruchnyk [Criminalistics. Academic course: a textbook]. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter. (in Ukrainian)

Markus, V. O. (2007). Kryminalistyka: navchalnyi posibnyk [Criminalistic: a textbook]. Kyiv: Kondor.

Perevozova, I. V. (2013). Nominatyvne pole kontseptu «ekonomichna ekspertyza» v suchasnykh umovakh yoho zastosuvannia v protsesi zdiisnennia finansovoho kontroliu [Nominative scope of the concept “economic expert analysis” under the modern conditions of its application in the process of finance controlling]. Ekonomika: realii chasu, 2, 150–156. Retrieved from:

Derii, V. A., Dema, D. I. (2017). Ekonomichna ekspertyza diialnosti pidpryiemstv [Economic expert analysis of enterprises performance]. Ekonomika i suspilstvo, 11, 508–514.

Kalmykova, Ya. S. (2013). Dokazy i dokazuvannia v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi [Evidence and proving in administrative proceedings] (PhD Thesis). Kharkiv.

Kostytskyi, M. V. (2013). Osoblyvosti provedennia sudovo-psykholohichnoi ekspertyzy v administratyvnomu protsesi [Peculiarities of the implementation of psychological expertise in administrative procedure]. Naukovoinformatsiinyi visnyk Ivano-Frankivskoho universytetu prava imeni Korolia Danyla Halytskoho. Seriia «Pravo», 8, 10–16.

Petrova, I. A., Shulzhenko, A. V. (2018). Similarities and differences of forensic expert activity in administrative and criminal procedures. Administrative law and administrative-procedural law: origins, achievements and prospects of development: Collective monograph. Riga: Izdevnieciba «Baltija Publishing».