This article explores the disciplinary responsibility of forensic examiners, providing a contemporary overview based on legal analysis and highlighting the need to improve the disciplinary process. The article aims to analyze the current state of legal regulation and strategies for enhancing the application of disciplinary responsibility to forensic examiners. Analysis of judicial practice has identified problem areas in the mechanism for holding forensic examiners accountable and the necessity to detail the disciplinary procedures. The study examines the practice of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, forensic science community members, implementers of the ‘Law-Justice’ project, and other stakeholders directly involved in improving the functioning of forensic examiners’ disciplinary responsibility. The research also investigates Ukraine’s November 3, 2022 law ‘2716IX,’ amending the law on forensic examination, which partially addresses contentious issues regarding forensic examiners’ disciplinary responsibility.

The text argues that the disciplinary offenses defined in Ukraine’s law on forensic examination require further detailed examination and description for correct qualification and determination of disciplinary misconduct characteristics. It provides brief descriptions and overviews of specific disciplinary offenses. Recommendations for improving the disciplinary responsibility institution include: 1) providing a comprehensive characterization of disciplinary offenses; 2) defining a mechanism for investigations, evidence analysis, reporting violations, and conducting independent inquiries; 3) ensuring forensic examiners’ rights, including the right to defense and the right to express their position regarding disciplinary breaches.

In the conclusions, the author suggests further research to find the most optimal disciplinary responsibility mechanism and considers measures for enhancing the disciplinary process concerning forensic examiners.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Melnyk R, Bevzenko V, Zahalne administratyvne pravo: navchalnyi posibnyk (Vaite 2014) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

2. Doroshenko O, ‘Problemi organіzacії ta provedennia sudovoi ekspertyzy pry zahystі prav іntelektualnoi vlasnostі’ (2008) 2 Іntelektualna vlasnіst 41–5 (in Ukrainian).

3. Inozemtseva K, ‘Kadrova polityka v systemi sudoustroiu yak osnova yakisnoho pravosuddia’ (2019) 8 Pravovi novely 76–81 (in Ukrainian).

4. Latysh K, Demydova Ye, Domashenko O, Kolesnikova I, ‘Sudovyi ekspert yak subiekt sudovo-ekspertnoi diialnosti: pravovyi status’ (2022) 5 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 549–553. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2022-5/132 (accessed: 15.09.2023) (in Ukrainian).

5. Oliinyk O, ‘Suchasnyi teoretychnyi vymir pryntsypiv administratyvno-pravovoho rehuliuvannia sudovo-ekspertnoi diialnosti’ (2015) 1 Naukovyi visnyk publichnoho ta pryvatnoho prava 101–7 (in Ukrainian).

Websites

6. Kruhlyi stil na temu: “Iurydychna vidpovidalnist sudovykh ekspertiv: kliuchovi praktychni pytannia” (Soiuz ekspertiv Ukrainy, 20.07.2023) <https://seu.in.ua/last_news/kruglyj-stilnatemu-yurydychna-vidpovidalnist-sudovyh-ekspertiv-klyuchovi-praktychni-pytannya> (accessed: 15.09.2023) (in Ukrainian).

7. Uzahalnennia za pidsumkamy obhovoren aktualnykh pytan u sferi sudovoi ekspertyzy. (Pravo–Justice, 2023) <https://www.pravojustice.eu/storage/app/uploads/public/649/40b/82 d/64940b82def1f184084483.pdf> (accesssed: 15.09.2023) (in Ukrainian).

8. Zakonoproiekt “Pro sudovo-ekspertnu diialnist”: realnist (Ministerstvo yustytsii Ukrainy, 07.12.2021) <https://minjust.gov.ua/news/ministry/zakonoproekt-pro-sudovo-ekspertnudiyalnistrealnist> (accessed: 16.09.2023).