Specialių žinių panaudojimo teisiniuose procesuose unifikavimas: realijos ir iššūkiai

LTŠio straipsnio tikslas - sistemiškai išanalizuoti specialių žinių panaudojimo atskiruose teisiniuose procesuose reglamentavimo skirtumus, pagrįsti šių žinių panaudojimo formų unifikavimo poreikį ir realias galimybes. Straipsnio autoriai, nesileisdami į deklaratyvias teorines specialisto ir eksperto funkcijų apibrėžtis ir specialių žinių panaudojimo formų sampratas, pateikia specialių žinių panaudojimo teisiniuose procesuose unifikavimo perspektyvą. Autoriai, analizuodami teisės aktus, reglamentuojančius specialių žinių panaudojimą įvairiuose teisiniuose procesuose, pastebi, kad specialių žinių panaudojimo forma, specialių žinių subjektų statusas ir galimybės atskiruose procesuose esmingai skiriasi, tačiau ekspertų (specialistų) statusą ir profesinę veiklą reglamentuojančiame specialiame teises akte reglamentavimas yra pernelyg siauras ir dviprasmiškas.

ENThe versatility and integrity of current State legal processes determine that the law and legal systems are becoming more and more indifferent, linked and at the same time unique. Besides, the independence of legal processes, which is usually leading by relative autonomy of codified legislation, predisposes the variation of their forms. The diversity of procedural forms is also fundamental to special knowledge which is usually applied to legal processes as a legal measure for truth determination. Special knowledge, as one to discover a probable truth, is the most important component of the evidence process. Special knowledge empowers lawyers to make legally significant decisions in administrative, criminal, civil and other cases. The procedural forms of special knowledge have particular regulation in different branches of procedural law. The significance and admissibility to apply these forms are widely discussed in rich national and international courts’ practice. Unfortunately, the use of special knowledge in legal processes is far from unification and it’s systematically proved by comparative legal analysis of procedural law branches.So, it’s still unclear why one branch of law is limited to the participation of expert while the other branches recognise both - expert and specialist. In Lithuanian criminal procedure law can be found both specialists’ and experts’ participation forms, contrary to civil procedure law which is limited to participation of expert only. For instance, in administrative procedure law, the evidence in the case can be collected on the basis of experts’ report and specialists’ explanations. However, significant data in criminal procedure law can be collected on the basis of Examination Act and specialists’ founding. Thus, these examples show that different legal processes have unique ways to name party possessing special knowledge and to identify non-identical sources of evidence and their forms. Such combination of legally significant terms and concepts in different legal processes, where the outcome of one process can often initiate other, determine the doubts on legal clarity and certainty.