The article substantiates the doctrinal basis for institutionalizing independent professional expertise as a preventive mechanism for law enforcement. Independent professional expertise is considered as a form of conformity assessment carried out on the principles of independence, objectivity and professional competence and has a procedurally defined nature. Its legal characteristics are defined: contractual basis, procedural orderliness, evidentiary and preventive orientation, legal certainty of results, and professional autonomy of the expert. The functions of independent professional expertise include preventive enforcement of legality, formation of objective legal assessment, support for informed management and economic decisions, and minimisation of legal risks. Expert conclusions are applied in the field of economic activity, public procurement, and other legal relationships that require assessment of compliance with legal or contractual norms. The study is based on a summary of the practice of organising and conducting independent professional expertise developed by IPE LLC, which reflects a logically structured model of institutional functioning of this type of expert activity that is consistent with the current legislation of Ukraine. Independent professional expertise is considered as an author’s conceptual development aimed at forming a preventive instrument of law enforcement. The purpose of this publication is to substantiate the doctrinal basis for institutionalising independent professional expertise as a component of the law enforcement mechanism and to determine its potential for the development of legal regulation. The object of the study is the legal relations arising in the process of organising and conducting independent professional expertise. The subject is the current positive law, the institutional status of expertise, the procedures for engaging experts, its functions and legal characteristics. Based on the results of scientific and applied analysis, provisions have been formulated that define the scope and purpose of independent professional expertise, its regulatory and legal framework, conceptual apparatus, principles of activity, criteria for assessing professional competence, rights and obligations of experts, stages of conducting expertise, and the legal nature of expert conclusions as its result, which together form the scientific and legal basis for a new institutionalised mechanism of law enforcement.

Journal articles

1. Baulin O, Shevchuk V, ‘Vykorystannia mozhlyvostei ekspertyzy storonamy kryminalnoho provadzhennia pid chas dokazuvannia na stadii dosudovoho rozsliduvannia’ [2017] 62 Kryminalistychna i sudova ekspertyza 100–108 (in Ukrainian).

2. Chernopiatov S, ‘Deiaki problemy pozytyvnoho natsionalnoho pravovoho rehuliuvannia uchasti eksperta z pytan prava u tsyvilistychnykh sudovykh protsesakh’ [2017] 6(1) Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii 88–91 (in Ukrainian).

3. Dementiev M, ‘Vnutrishnie perekonannia ta formy vysnovkiv ekspertiv’ [2022] 29(4) Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky 149–159 https://doi.org/10.32353/ khrife.4.2022.08 (in Ukrainian).

4. Diachenko S, Korniichuk S, ‘Ekspert z pytan prava v hospodarskomu sudovomu protsesi’ [2022] 46 Pravova derzhava 69–78 (in Ukrainian).

5. Hetmantsev M, ‘Pravova pryroda vysnovku eksperta v haluzi prava’ [2018] 6 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 333–337 (in Ukrainian).

6. Hnatiuk A, ‘Ekspertnyi vysnovok: yak dotrymatysia zasady zmahalnosti?’ [2021] 3 Poltavskyi pravovyi chasopys 24–35 (in Ukrainian).

7. Karmaza O, ‘Ekspert u haluzi prava v sudovomu protsesi: teoriia ta sudova praktyka’ [2019] 5 Pravo i suspilstvo 89–94 https://doi.org/10.32842/2078-3736-2019-5-1-14 (in Ukrainian).

8. Klymchuk M, Marko S, ‘Informatsiina tsinnist vysnovku eksperta, yak dzherela dokaziv u kryminalnii spravi’ [2011] 3–4(31) Pravova informatyka 81–88 (in Ukrainian).

9. Korniienko V, ‘Vysnovok pravovoi ekspertyzy: teoretyko-pravovi aspekty’ [2020] 7 Teoriia derzhavy i prava 265–269 (in Ukrainian).

10. Korotka N, ‘Tsyvilno-pravovyi status eksperta z pytan prava ta yoho vysnovok u haluzi prava yak zasib dokazuvannia u tsyvilnomu protsesi’ [2018] 53(1) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu 97–100 (in Ukrainian).

11. Lazarenko A, ‘Vidmezhuvannia zavidomo nepravdyvoho vysnovku eksperta vid ekspertnoi pomylky’ [2023] 8 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 422–424 https://doi. org/10.32782/2524-0374/2023-8/98 (in Ukrainian).

12. Osmolian V, Haiur I, Dombrovska O, ‘Otsinka sudom naukovoi obgruntovanosti ta dostovirnosti vysnovku eksperta pid chas rozghliadu sprav, vidnesenykh zakonom do yurysdyktsii hospodarskoho sudu, ta trudovykh sporiv’ [2022] 1 Yevropeiski perspektyvy 157–164 (in Ukrainian).

13. Puhachenko O, Kosenko S, Babii M, ‘Orhanizatsiia provedennia sudovykh ekspertyz ta ekspertnykh doslidzhen z ekonomichnykh pytan’ [2021] 6 Tsentralnyi naukovyi visnyk. Ekonomichni nauky 115–130 (in Ukrainian).

14. Riabchenko Yu, ‘Tsyvilnyi protsesualnyi status eksperta z pytan prava: pytannia vdoskonalennia pravovoho rehuliuvannia’ [2017] 11 Pravova prosvita (accessed 01.03.2026) (in Ukrainian).

15. Romaniv S, Holiash I, ‘Osnovni napriamy vdoskonalennia pravovoho rehuliuvannia sudovo-ekonomichnoi ekspertyzy v Ukraini’ [2017] 10 Ekonomika i suspilstvo 798–802 (in Ukrainian).

16. Shcherbak S, Serhiienko B, ‘Pravove stanovyshche eksperta z pytan prava v tsyvilnomu protsesi Ukrainy’ [2018] 13 Pravovi horyzonty 29–32 (in Ukrainian).

17. Shtefan A, ‘Vysnovok eksperta u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi’ [2018] 2 Teoriia i praktyka intelektualnoi vlasnosti 16–28 (in Ukrainian).

18. Starchenko O, ‘Problemni pytannia protsesualnoho statusu eksperta z pytan prava’ [2019] 8 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 26–29 (in Ukrainian).

19. Zaiets O, ‘Osnovni aspekty intehratsii fakhovoi ekspertyzy v pravovyi prostir dlia pryiniattia derzhavnykh rishen’ [2025] 3(76) Naukovi pratsi Kyivskoho aviatsiinoho instytutu. Seriia: Yurydychnyi visnyk “Povitriane i kosmichne pravo” 59–68 https://doi.org/10.18372/2307- 9061.76.20520 (in Ukrainian).

20. Zavdovieva I, Horbenko V, Diachenko O, Cherkashyna N, ‘Pomylka ta yii znachennia v sudovo-ekspertnii diialnosti’ [2018] 30(2) Kryminalistychnyi visnyk 31–39 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

21. Abramova V, ‘Ekspertni pomylky: sutnist, henezys, shliakhy podolannia’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2011) (in Ukrainian). Conference papers

22. Baliuk I, Namiasenko O, Shcherbakova O, ‘Uchast eksperta z pytan prava v hospodarskomu protsesi yak dodatkova harantiia nalezhnoho vyrishennia sporu’, Sudova vlada v systemi strymuvan ta protyvah demokratychnoho suspilstva: komparatyvna teoriia i praktyka: mater. Vseukr. naukovo-prakt. konf. (15 sichnia 2021 roku) (F Shulzhenko ta in. (red. kol.), Yurinkom Inter 2021) 162–165 (in Ukrainian).

23. Kroitor V, ‘Ekspert z pytan prava v tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi’, Problemy tsyvilnoho prava ta protsesu: tezy dop. uchasnykiv nauk.-prakt. konf., prysviach. svitlii pamiati O. A. Pushkina, (m. Kharkiv, 24 trav. 2019 r.) (KhNUVS, 2019) 110–114 (in Ukrainian).

24. Krylova O, ‘Otsinka vidpovidnosti (nezalezhna fakhova ekspertyza) ta sudova ekspertyza: komplementarnist chy alternatyvnist’, Sudova ekspertyza: yevropeiska intehratsiia ta tsyfrova transformatsiia: materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf. (Lviv, Kyshyniv, Kyiv, Odesa, 5 lystopada 2025 roku): tezy dopovidei (Rastr, 2025) 196–200 (in Ukrainian).

25. Romanovska L, ‘Nezalezhna fakhova ekspertyza yak instrument preventyvnoho zabezpechennia zakonnosti dohovirnykh vidnosyn’, Sudova ekspertyza: yevropeiska intehratsiia ta tsyfrova transformatsiia: materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf. (Lviv, Kyshyniv, Kyiv, Odesa, 5 lystopada 2025 roku): tezy dopovidei (Rastr 7 2025) 341–346 (in Ukrainian).

Newspaper articles

26. Drozdov O, Hryhorenko Ye, Perederii O, Stiebieliev A, ‘Perevahy ta osoblyvosti zastosuvannia vysnovkiv eksperta v haluzi prava’ (Zakon i biznes, 01.05–14.05.2021) (accessed 01.03.2026) (in Ukrainian).