The article is devoted to the coverage of theoretical and methodological principles of realization of the legal status of legal experts, formation of their conclusions and development of proposals on the main vectors of further development of the legal status.

The purpose of the article is to highlight aspects of the legal status of legal experts in terms of place in the legal system, the role and importance in the process of lawmaking and law enforcement (especially judicial law enforcement), as well as the interpretation of law.

The authors attempted to conduct a generalized study of the legal nature of scientific opinions of experts in the field of law as an intersectoral general procedural sub-institution, which performs an important workload in the development of socio-legal practice. The authors note that legal experts and their conclusions are a kind of amicus curiae and in terms of the place of relevant procedural rules in the legal system, their homogeneity in the direction of legal regulation, as well as the identity of legal norms that take place in the relevant branches of law believe that they can be considered as a cross-sectoral legal sub-institution of such an institution as a participant in a judicial process/proceeding (constitutional, criminal, etc.) with special knowledge.

The authors emphasize the specifics of the objects and subjects of relevant legal relations within the intersectoral institution of the participant of the trial/proceedings (constitutional, criminal), who has special knowledge that determines the modification of the method, methods and means of regulation within the subinstitution of legal expert . In addition, the authors emphasize such specific properties of this subinstitution. First, the legal status of legal experts is regulated by a number of branches of law, namely procedural law, and is therefore a general procedural institution. Secondly, it has an objective-subjective nature. Third, determines the specifics of the subject of legal regulation. Fourth, it is relatively independent (autonomous) in the legal system. Fifth, its norms interact with common law and intersectoral principles and with the norms of the relevant procedural branches of law. This indicates the systematic connection of this subinstitute (genetic, subordinate and coordination). Sixth, it is unique in nature and performs only its own function. Seventh, it consolidates the peculiarity of its subject, the legal status of the subjects, fixing them with specific terminology, legislative constructions, definitions. Eighth, is formally defined. Ninth, has its own functional focus.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Bocharov D, Pravozastosovcha diialnist: poniattia, funktsii ta formy: problemni lektsii (AMSU 2006) (in Ukrainian).

2. Dodin E, Dokazyvanie i dokazatel’stva v pravoprimenitel’noj dejatel’nosti organov sovetskogo upravlenija (Kiev-Odessa 1976) (in Russian).

3. Rossinskaja E, Galjashina E, Nastol’naja kniga sud’i: sudebnaja jekspertiza (Prospekt 2010) (in Russian).

4. Sandevuar P, Vvedenie v pravo (Intratjek-R 1994) (in Russian).

5. Shutak I, Yurydychna tekhnika: kurs lektsii dlia bakalavriv (Kolo 2015) (in Ukrainian).

6. Skakun O, Teoriia prava i derzhavy: pidruch (2-he vyd, Alerta 2010) (in Ukrainian).

7. Todyka Yu, Tlumachennia Konstytutsii i zakoniv Ukrainy: teoriia ta praktyka (Fakt 2001) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

 8. Nalyvaiko L (red), Teoriia ta praktyka pravozastosuvannia u testovykh zavdanniakh: navchalnyi posibnyk (2-he vyd, pererob i dop, 2019) (in Ukrainian).

Encyclopedias

9. Oleinykov S, Uvarova O, ‘Instytut prava’ v Velyka ukrainska yurydychna entsyklopediia, t 3: Zahalna teoriia prava (O Petryshyn (holova redkol), Nats. akad. prav. nauk Ukrainy; In-t derzhavy i prava im. V. M. Koretskoho NAN Ukrainy; Nats. yuryd. un-t im. Yaroslava Mudroho 2017) (in Ukrainian).

10. Semenikhin I, ‘Pravova doktryna’ v Velyka ukrainska yurydychna entsyklopediia, t 3: Zahalna teoriia prava (O Petryshyn (holova redkol), Nats. akad. prav. nauk Ukrainy; In-t derzhavy i prava im. V. M. Koretskoho NAN Ukrainy; Nats. yuryd. un-t im. Yaroslava Mudroho 2017) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

11. Aleksandrov A, ‘Sovremennaja interpretacija klassicheskih koncepcij sudebnogo pravotvorchestva’ [2011] 2 (19) Pravo i upravlenie HHІ vek 130 (in Russian).

12. Antoshkina V, ‘Osoblyvosti tlumachennia v systemi pryvatnoho prava’ [2020] 3 (28) Pravova pozytsiia 12 (in Ukrainian).

13. Barandych S, ‘Pravozastosuvannia v suchasnomu vymiri yurydychnoi nauky’ (2014) 4 Naukovyi chasopys Natsionalnoi akademii prokuratury Ukrainy 1–7 (in Ukrainian).

14. Byshevets O, ‘Vykorystannia spetsialnykh znan u dokazuvanni v kryminalnykh provadzhenniakh’ (2015) 2 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva 188 (in Ukrainian).

15. Drishliuk V, ‘Novi zasoby dokazuvannia v hospodarskomu protsesi u svitli sudovoi reformy v Ukraini’ [2018] 4 (1) Pivdennoukrainskyi pravnychyi chasopys 116 (in Ukrainian).

16. Fedchuk S, ‘Naukovo-ekspertni doslidzhennia (vysnovky) ta zaluchennia eksperta v haluzi prava: mozhlyvosti vykorystannia u vyrishenni podatkovykh sporiv’ [2018] 3–4 (12–13) Mizhnarodnyi yurydychnyi visnyk: aktualni problemy suchasnosti (teoriia ta praktyka) 126 (in Ukrainian).

17. Hetmantsev M, ‘Pravova pryroda vysnovku eksperta u haluzi prava’ (2018) 6 Pidpryiemstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 333–7 (in Ukrainian).

18. Hryhorenko Ye, Perederii O, Stiebieliev A, ‘Perevahy zastosuvannia vysnovkiv eksperta u haluzi prava v advokatskii ta sudovii praktytsi’ [2021] 4 (72) Visnyk Natsionalnoi asotsiatsii advokativ Ukrainy 55 (in Ukrainian).

19. Ivanov A, ‘Rech’ o precedente’ (2011) 4 Pravovaja mysl’: istorija i sovremennost’ 4 (in Russian). 20. Karmaza O, ‘Ekspert u haluzi prava v sudovomu protsesi: teoriia ta sudova praktyka’ (2019) 5 Pravo i suspilstvo 94 (in Ukrainian).

21. Konstantyi O, ‘“Amicus curiae” v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy: problemy vprovadzhennia’ (2018) 1 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 97 (in Ukrainian).

22. Krukoves V, ‘Pravovyi status eksperta z pytan prava v tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy’ [2019] 2 (18) Aktualni problemy pravoznavstva 125 (in Ukrainian).

23. Levytska N, ‘Mizhhaluzevi normatyvno-pravovi instytuty: deiaki teoretychni pytannia’ [2015] 14 (1) Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Ser.: Yurysprudentsiia 23 (in Ukrainian).

24. Medynska L, ‘Vykorystannia spetsialnykh znan u kryminalnomu provadzhenni Ukrainy’ [2014] 2 (5) Prykarpatskyi yurydychnyi visnyk 279–80 (in Ukrainian).

25. Melnyk Ya, ‘Formuvannia systemy protsesualnykh instytutiv rezhymu tsyvilnoi protsesualnoi bezpeky’ [2016] 2 (2) Pravo i suspilstvo 53 (in Ukrainian).

26. Mingela O, ‘Juridicheskaja praktika: pravovoe povedenie i pravosoznanie sub»ektov’ [2015] 18 (1) Naukovij vіsnik Mіzhnarodnogo gumanіtarnogo unіversitetu. Ser.: Jurisprudencіja 29 (in Russian).

27. Nykolyna K, ‘Osoblyvosti protsedurnykh zasad pravozastosovnoi diialnosti’ (2011) 2 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 69 (in Ukrainian).

28. Ozerskyi I, ‘Ekspertyza v haluzi prava yak nova forma zastosuvannia spetsialnykh znan yurydychnoho psykholoha’ (2019) 5 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 313–6 (in Ukrainian).

29. Perepeliuk A, ‘Pryntsypy ta vymohy prava yak osnovopolozhni zasady pravozastosovnoi diialnosti’ (2012) 3 Almanakh prava 245–9 (in Ukrainian).

30. Pilkov K, ‘Pytannia faktu ta prava: fundamentalne i prykladne rozmezhuvannia obstavyn spravy, yikh yurydychnoi kvalifikatsii ta zastosuvannia prava’ (2020) 8 Pravo Ukrainy 145 (in Ukrainian).

31. Semchyk V, Polivoda O, ‘Naukovo-pravova ekspertyza yak forma doktrynalnoho tlumachennia zakonodavstva’ (2013) 5 Pravo Ukrainy 409–15 (in Ukrainian).

32. Semenikhin I, ‘Tsytuvannia suddiamy naukovykh dzherel: vitchyznianyi ta zarubizhnyi dosvid’ [2015] 1 (7) Teoriia i praktyka pravoznavstva 10 (in Ukrainian).

33. Shtefan A, ‘Vysnovok eksperta u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi’ (2018) 2 Teoriia i praktyka intelektualnoi vlasnosti 25 (in Ukrainian).

34. Vasyliev S, ‘Vydy ta systemy dzherel tsyvilnoho sudochynstva zarubizhnykh krain: porivnialno-pravovyi analiz’ (2015) 1 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 47 (in Ukrainian).

35. Yukhymiuk O, ‘Typolohiia pravozastosuvannia’ [2012] 19 (1) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia “Pravo” 133 (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

36. Kochura O, ‘Vyznachennia poniattia “spetsialni znannia” ta yikh vykorystannia u kryminalnomu provadzhenni’ Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku kryminalistyky ta kryminalnoho protsesu tezy dop. mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf. do 100-richchia vid dnia narodzhennia prof. M. V. Saltevskoho (Kharkiv 2017) (in Ukrainian).

Theses

37. Bocharov D, ‘Dokazuvannia u pravozastosovnii diialnosti: zahalnoteoretychni pytannia’ (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2007) (in Ukrainian).

38. Demchuk M, ‘Rol Verkhovnoho Sudu u zabezpechenni yednosti sudovoi praktyky v Ukraini’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2018) (in Ukrainian).

39. Fedchyshyn A, ‘Ekspertyza v treteiskomu sudochynstvi’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2021) (in Ukrainian).

40. Kholodenko N, ‘Orhanizatsiia naukovoho zabezpechennia diialnosti sudiv’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2021) (in Ukrainian).

41. Kleshchenko N, ‘Unifikatsiia zakonodavstva: teoretyko-prykladni aspekty’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2020) (in Ukrainian).

42. Korobov A, ‘Pravovaja kvalifikacija: osnovy, ponjatie, znachenie, jetapy’ (avtoref dis kand jurid nauk, 2005) (in Russian).

43. Romanenko D, ‘Analogija prava (civilisticheskoe issledovanie)’ (dis kand jurid nauk, 2019) (in Russian).

Websites

44. Drozdov O, ‘Vtilennia Stratehii rozvytku pravosuddia maie vidbuvatysia spilno z advokaturoiu’ <https://unba.org.ua/news/6783-vtilennya-strategii-rozvitku-pravosuddyamae-vidbuvatisya-spil-no-z-advokaturoyu-oleksandr-drozdov.html> (accessed: 22.05.2021) (in Ukrainian).

45. Drozdov O, Hryhorenko Ye, Perederii O, Stiebieliev A, ‘Perevahy ta osoblyvosti zastosuvannia vysnovkiv eksperta v haluzi prava’ [2021] 18 (1524) Zakoni i biznes <https://zib.com.ua/ua/147534-perevagi_ta_osoblivosti_zastosuvannya_visnovkiv_ eksperta_v_g.html> (accessed: 22.05.2021) (in Ukrainian).

46. Evseev A, ‘Nuzhny li Ukraine lobbisty v sudah’ (Lіga. Blogi, 17.10.2016) <https://blog. liga.net/user/aevseev/article/24361> (accessed: 22.05.2021) (in Russian).

47. Luspenyk D, ‘Dokazuvannia u tsyvilnomu protsesi: shcho novoho u TsPK ta chomu sud nadilenyi pravom vytrebuvannia dokaziv’ (Sudebno-iurydycheskaia hazeta. Bloh. 10 sichnia 2019 roku) <https://sud.ua/ru/news/blog/132494-dokazuvannyautsivilnomu-protsesi-scho-novogo-u-tspk-ta-chomu-sud-nadileniy-pravomvitrebuvannyadokaziv-ba6687> (accessed: 22.05.2021) (in Ukrainian).

48. Mihajlova A, ‘“Druz’ja suda”: kak juridicheskie zakljuchenija vlijajut na sudebnye reshenija’ <https://pravo.ru/story/203141> (accessed: 22.05.2021) (in Russian).