| Abstract [eng] |
The Master's thesis analyses the forensic examination report as evidence in civil proceedings by examining the Lithuanian and foreign case law and by systematically evaluating the legal norms and doctrine of the countries of the common law and the continental law traditions. The first part of the Master's thesis aims to analyse the status of the forensic expert as a participant in the proceedings in both Lithuanian and foreign civil proceedings, while at the same time examining the distinction of the forensic expert's report from other means of evidence available in different legal systems. In addition, the differences between the role of the forensic expert and the appointment of a forensic expert are analysed by comparing the common law tradition, the continental law tradition and an abstract overview of the arbitration process. The second part focuses on the main subject of the Master's thesis - the evaluation of the forensic report and the evaluation criteria. Again, a systematic assessment of the legal norms and case law in force in the common law and continental legal traditions is carried out, thus highlighting the main differences and similarities in the criteria for the evaluation of the expert report used in the legal systems. The most extensive analysis of admissibility is carried out in the common law countries, where the US doctrine is mainly used, and the criteria for the evaluation of expert reports in the continental legal traditions, which distinguish between the judge's inner conviction and the free evaluation of evidence, are also discussed in detail. A part of the Master's thesis is individually devoted to the Lithuanian civil procedure and the criteria for the evaluation of forensic expert reports established in Lithuanian case law. The third part is exclusively limited to the Lithuanian civil procedure. This part focuses on a comparison of the status, scope of activities and the two types of reports provided by forensic and private experts: differences, similarities and issues. It raises a discussion question which, in the light of the current situation and the legislation in force, seeks to clarify whether it is useful and even feasible to start assessing the findings of forensic and private experts by analogy and what consequences this might have. |
