Expert report in administrative proceedings

Abstract

This article examines the procedure and dead­lines for submission to the court of an expert report commissioned by a party to the case under Ukrainian administrative proceedings legislation. The relevance of this study is due to the existing conflicting case law regarding the deadline for submission of such evidence to the court, as well as the possibility of attaching it to the case file during the merits stage of proceedings. The paper considers how parties may submit this evidence. Another contentious issue is the different interpretations provided by the adminis­trative courts as to whether proceedings should be suspended for the duration of a forensic examination ordered independently by a party. The hypothesis of this study is that such an expert report must be submitted before the merits stage of proceedings, otherwise, the court may refuse to accept it. In order to test this hypothesis, a detailed analysis of case law was conducted. It was noted that a party-appointed expert report constitutes procedural evidence in admi­nistrative cases and, according to the general rules, must be attached to the first statement on the merits of the case submitted to the court. If this document cannot be submitted within the prescribed time limit, it should be filed together with a motion to renew the procedural deadlines before the merits stage of proceedings begins. Analysis of the case law shows that valid reasons for failing to submit such evidence within the prescribed deadline may justify the court renewing the procedural time limits for its submission. Courts are most likely to attach independently obtained expert reports to the case file before the substantive consideration of the case begins, based on case law analysis. In turn, whereas some administrative courts have interpreted the law to allow such evidence to be submitted even at later stages, others have not. The author emphasizes that the suspension of proceedings by the court for the duration of a forensic examination, initiated inde­pendently by a party to the case, is inconsistent with current legislation. If a party has commissioned an examination that is still ongoing, the appropriate procedural step is to apply to the court for an extension of the deadline to submit the party-appointed expert report.