Duties, responsibility and sanctions arising from it of a court-appointed expert. Lithuanian context and European perspective

Straipsnyje analizuojamas 2014 m. gruodžio 12 d. Komisijos teisingumo efektyvumui stiprinti rekomendacijose dėl teismo eksperto vaidmens procese Europos Sąjungos valstybėse narėse Nr. CEPEJ(2014)14 numatytas teismo eksperto statuso aspektas ? pareigos ir, kai kuriais atvejais, atsakomybė, siekiant palyginti Lietuvos teisinės reglamentacijos atitiktį Europos standartui.The article presents in details the main regulations of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) Guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings of Council of Europe’s Member States. The document related to the duties and responsibilities of a court-appointed expert was adopted by CEPEJ at its 24th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 11–12 December 2014)31. Authors of the article group these duties into personal and procedural categories and analyse them in the relation to Lithuanian legislation, forensic and court practices. Presented and analysed data enables to conclude that: Personal responsibilities (duties) of forensic experts defined in European minimum standards comply with national regulations of the Republic of Lithuania. It should be emphasised that CEPEJ guidelines define the requirements of objectivity and independency for a forensic expert more broadly as well as include the responsibility of technical personnel participating in forensic examination into personal duties of a forensic expert. The main procedural duties of a forensic expert can be found in national legislation; nevertheless, it lacks systematic approach. What is more, there is no national legal regulation on such European duties as communication, documentation/notification and the duty to take out insurance. Court practices reveal that courts are passive in the application of sanctions (responsibilities) to forensic experts for their intentional or negligent activities during the performance of their duties. The same should be stated about parties which avoid exercising their rights for civil claim against forensic experts in the same cases