ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL MEANS OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OVER EXPERT ACTIVITIES IN UKRAINE

Abstract

The article analyzes the administrative and legal nature of control and supervision in the field of forensic activity as components of public administration. The essence of the concepts “control” and “supervision” is defined through their interpretation in legal theory and practice. Control is presented as a broader institution covering the verification of the performance of tasks and functions by controlled entities, as well as the performance of informational-analytical and corrective roles. Supervision has a narrower character and is applied in areas of increased social danger, combining preventive measures and the possibility of administrative coercion. It is substantiated that forensic examination is one of the key means of proof in criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings; therefore, the results of expert research must be subject to control. Despite the guarantees of the expert’s independence, legislation provides a number of organizational and legal mechanisms for verifying his or her activity. The procedure for the certification and state registration of forensic methodologies, the maintenance of the state register of certified experts, as well as disciplinary measures, is analyzed. Special attention is paid to interdepartmental coordination and scientific-methodological support, which are implemented through specially authorized bodies. Judicial practice confirms the importance of control and supervision in the form of appointing examinations, verifying the admissibility of evidence, warning experts about liability, and suspending proceedings until conclusions are obtained. It is concluded that combining the independence of the expert with effective external control mechanisms creates an optimal balance between guarantees of professional autonomy and ensuring the objectivity of results. It is emphasized that the modern model of control and supervision combines legal, organizational, and practical tools, which require further development, particularly the improvement of review procedures, professional training, and the introduction of unified quality assessment standards.