Public Anti-Corruption Assessment of the Draft Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine ‘On Judicial Expertise’”

05/03/2026

Prepared on 5 March 2026

Submitted to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on 6 March 2026

I. LEGAL BASIS AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT

The object of this review is the draft Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine 'On Judicial Expertise'" (hereinafter — the DRAFT), developed by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which proposes a comprehensive reform of the system for the regulation of judicial expert activities.

The public anti-corruption assessment was conducted in accordance with Part 7 of Article 55 of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption" at the initiative of the following public associations:

  • Union of Associations "Confederation of Non-State Experts and Expert Organizations of Ukraine" (EDRPOU code 45940495);

  • Union of Associations "Ukrainian Independent Scientific and Research Expert Union" (EDRPOU code 39174328);

  • NGO "Association of Experts of Ukraine" (EDRPOU code 39604595);

  • NGO "Association of Judicial Experts of Ukraine" (EDRPOU code 44172631).

The purpose of the anti-corruption assessment is to identify provisions of the DRAFT that, either independently or in combination with other provisions, may create conditions for corruption or corruption-related offences, establish unjustified advantages, or grant excessive discretion to public authorities, according to the criteria set out in the Methodology for Conducting Anti-Corruption Review, approved by Order of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) dated 18 May 2023 No. 109/23.

II. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DRAFT

The DRAFT provides for a significant expansion of the powers of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine as the central executive authority in the following areas:

  • shaping the structure of the market for expert services;

  • determining the conditions for entry into the profession;

  • establishing control mechanisms;

  • applying disciplinary sanctions.

The proposed regulatory model envisages the concentration of rule-making, supervisory, and sanctioning functions within a single authority, which substantially alters the balance of public regulatory influence in the field of judicial expert activity.

III. PROVISIONS OF THE DRAFT LAW RAISING CONCERNS

The corruption risks are associated with the following provisions of the DRAFT:

  1. List of examinations conducted exclusively in state institutions:
    "The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine approves … the list of types of judidial expert examinations that are conducted exclusively by state specialized institutions" (para. (b) of the amendments to Article 8);

  2. Certification of judicial experts:
    "The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine approves … the procedure for the certification of judicial experts" (para. (c) of the amendments to Article 8);

  3. Awarding qualifications and professional development of judicial experts:
    "For the purpose of resolving issues related to awarding the qualification of a judicial expert in a relevant expert specialty, confirming the professional development of a judicial expert in the relevant expert specialty, … temporary suspension, reinstatement and termination of the right to conduct judicial examinations in the relevant expert specialty, … expert qualification commissions shall be established under ministries and other state bodies performing organizational and administrative functions in relation to the activities of state specialized institutions and judicial experts who are not employees of such institutions. These commissions shall operate in accordance with this Law and the regulations governing them approved by the respective ministry or other state body."

  4. Control and inspections of forensic experts:
    "Control over compliance with legislation governing judicial expert activity by judicial experts who are not employees of state specialized institutions shall be exercised by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine in accordance with the procedure established by it" (amendments to Article 8).

  5. Disciplinary liability of forensic experts:
    "The procedure for considering issues related to the disciplinary liability of judidical experts in accordance with this Law shall be determined, within their respective powers, by ministries and other state bodies performing organizational and administrative functions in relation to the activities of state specialized institutions and judicial experts who are not employees of such institutions" (amendments to Article 14);

  6. State registration of forensic examination methodologies:
    "Methodologies for conducting judicial expert examinations shall be subject to state registration in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine" (para. (d) of the amendments to Article 8); "Methodologies for conducting judicial expert examinations that are the result of scientific research (except for judicial medical and judicial psychiatric methodologies) shall be subject to certification and state registration in accordance with the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine" (amendments to Article 8).

These provisions are assessed through the framework of the Methodology, in particular with regard to the presence of the following corruption-generating factors:

  1. Establishment or expansion of discretionary powers of a public authority without defining exhaustive cases, grounds, forms, time limits, procedures for exercising such powers, mechanisms of oversight over their exercise, and liability for potential abuses in the course of exercising such powers (para. 1, part 1, Section III of the Methodology);

  2. Unjustified use of blanket or referral provisions delegating regulation to subordinate normative legal acts (para. 4, part 1, Section III of the Methodology);

  3. Unclear regulation of rights, obligations, or liability of individuals or legal entities, in violation of the principle of legal certainty (para. 4, part 1, Section III of the Methodology);

  4. Unjustified establishment of benefits, advantages, or other privileges for individuals or legal entities (para. 8, part 1, Section III of the Methodology).

1. Establishment or Expansion of Discretionary Powers of a Public Authority Without Properly Defined Limits for Their Exercise (para. 1, part 1, Section III of the Methodology)

Taken together, the above provisions (1–7) grant the central executive authority decisive influence over:

  • access to the profession of judicial expert (paras. 2, 3);

  • confirmation of qualifications and continuation of professional activity (paras. 3, 7);

  • the structure of the judicial expert services market (para. 1);

  • oversight of the activities of judicial experts (para. 4);

  • the application of disciplinary sanctions (para. 5);

  • the admissibility of scientific methodologies used in judicial examinations (para. 6).

At the same time, the DRAFT does not establish:

  • exhaustive grounds for decision-making;

  • criteria for adopting such decisions;

  • limits of regulatory intervention;

  • principles of proportionality;

  • guarantees of independent oversight.

As a result, the executive authority may simultaneously determine the rules governing access to the profession, exercise supervisory powers, and impose sanctions, thereby creating an excessive concentration of regulatory authority.

Accordingly, the scope of powers granted to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine under the DRAFT has an open-ended and framework character and may be exercised at the discretion of the authority.

The above circumstances correspond to the definition of a corruption-generating factor set out in para. 1, part 1, Section III of the Methodology.


2. Unjustified Use of Blanket References to Subordinate Legislation (para. 4, part 1, Section III of the Methodology)

Provisions 1–6 demonstrate a systematic delegation of essential elements of the regulation of judicial expert activity to subordinate legislation. In particular, the DRAFT:

  • does not define criteria for classifying certain judicial examinations as "exclusively state-performed" (para. 1);

  • does not establish exhaustive criteria, procedural rules, or safeguards governing the certification of judicial experts (para. 2);

  • does not define the basic parameters for awarding and upgrading qualifications, including the duration of training and internships, requirements for mentors, requirements for training institutions, criteria for evaluating results, and procedural safeguards (para. 3);

  • does not establish exhaustive grounds, procedures, or limits for inspections of judicial experts (para. 4);

  • does not provide a clear definition of disciplinary offences, criteria for their severity, or principles governing the proportionality of sanctions (para. 5);

  • does not define criteria for the admissibility of judicial expertise methodologies, grounds for refusing their registration, time limits for review, or requirements for reasoning of decisions (para. 6).

At the same time, these matters directly concern access to the profession and the ability to continue professional activity.

Under Article 92(1) of the Constitution of Ukraine, the following matters shall be determined exclusively by the laws of Ukraine:

"…(8) the legal foundations and guarantees of entrepreneurship...;

…(14) … the foundations of forensic examination."

The delegation of essential regulatory elements to subordinate legislation reduces legal certainty, weakens parliamentary oversight, and creates conditions for arbitrary interpretation and selective application of legal provisions. This corresponds to the characteristics of a corruption-generating factor set out in para. 4, part 1, Section III of the Methodology.

3. Unclear Regulation of Rights, Obligations and Liability (para. 6, part 1, Section III of the Methodology)

Provisions 2–5 demonstrate the use of broad and vague wording without clearly defined criteria for their application, which does not ensure an adequate level of legal certainty. In particular, the DRAFT introduces into the Law of Ukraine "On Judicial Expertise" a number of broadly formulated provisions, including:

  • in the field of certification: the wording "certification shall be conducted" without establishing exhaustive assessment criteria, requirements for the composition of the certification body, procedural safeguards, or grounds for refusal (para. 2);

  • in the field of awarding and upgrading qualifications: the terms "compliance with qualification requirements" and "training of judicial experts" are used without defining criteria for evaluating the results of training and internships, requirements for their content, or minimum assessment standards (para. 3);

  • in the field of supervision: the terms "organizational and administrative support" and "control over compliance with legislative requirements… in accordance with the procedure determined by them" are used without defining the limits and grounds for interference in the activities of private judicial experts or the procedures governing inspections (para. 4);

  • in the field of disciplinary liability: the wording "within their powers… determined by ministries" without providing a clear definition of disciplinary offences, criteria for their seriousness, or a link between the nature of the violation and the sanction imposed (para. 5).

Such legal uncertainty creates the possibility of different interpretations and selective application of the provisions, which corresponds to the characteristics of a corruption-generating factor set out in para. 6, part 1, Section III of the Methodology.

4. Risk of Establishing Unjustified Advantages (para. 8, part 1, Section III of the Methodology)

Provision 1 — "The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine approves the list of types of forensic examinations that are conducted exclusively by state specialized institutions" — provides that the executive authority may, at its discretion, determine the scope of the market and the areas of activity available to private judidical experts without establishing clear statutory criteria for distinguishing between state and private judicial examinations. This creates the possibility of introducing discriminatory conditions for professional activity.

In particular, the DRAFT does not define the criteria according to which a judicial expertise may be classified as "exclusively state-performed", such as: criteria of complexity, criteria related to public risk, criteria concerning restricted access regimes, or requirements for providing justification for such decisions. In the absence of such criteria, the possibility remains for establishing advantages for state institutions without objective justification.

This creates the following risks:

  1. restriction of private judicisl experts' access to the field of judicial expert activity;

  2. the formation of an administrative monopoly;

  3. unequal conditions of professional activity.

Such a regulatory framework exhibits the characteristics of a corruption-generating factor provided for in para. 8, part 1, Section III of the Methodology.

IV. GENERAL ASSESSMENT

The analysis of the provisions of the DRAFT indicates that the proposed regulatory model provides for a significant concentration of rule-making, supervisory, and sanctioning powers within a single executive authority without adequate statutory definition of the limits of such powers, procedural safeguards, or mechanisms of independent oversight.

Essential elements of the legal status of a judicial expert — including access to the profession, confirmation of qualifications, inspections of professional activity, the application of disciplinary measures, as well as the admissibility of forensic examination methodologies — are delegated to subordinate regulation without establishing in the law exhaustive criteria, grounds, time limits, and principles governing the adoption of the relevant decisions.

Such a regulatory framework does not ensure a sufficient level of legal certainty and predictability of regulation, which are essential components of the rule of law as enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine and affirmed in the case law of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

Furthermore, the possibility of determining the list of types of judicial expert examinations to be conducted exclusively by state specialized institutions, without statutory criteria for such differentiation, creates a risk of establishing unequal conditions for state and non-state actors engaged in judicial expert activity and may lead to unjustified restrictions on access to professional activity in the field of judicial expertise.

Taken together, these provisions create conditions for selective application of the law, excessive administrative influence over the professional activity of judicial experts, and increased dependence of professional actors on regulatory discretion.

V. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the public anti-corruption review, the following findings have been established:

1. Certain provisions of the DRAFT contain corruption-generating factors in terms of:

  • the expansion of discretionary powers without proper definition of the limits of their exercise;

  • excessive reliance on blanket provisions delegating essential elements of regulation to subordinate legislation;

  • unclear regulation of the rights, obligations, and liability of forensic experts;

  • the absence of legislatively defined criteria for distinguishing between state and non-state forensic expert activity.

2. In its current wording, the DRAFT creates systemic corruption risks and requires substantial revision in order to:

  • define in the DRAFT exhaustive grounds and criteria for the adoption of key decisions;

  • establish clear procedural safeguards for subjects of professional activity;

  • ensure a proper balance between the functions of state regulation and guarantees of the independence of forensic expert activity.

In view of the above, and guided by Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Articles 8 and 92 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. To take into account the above observations during the further consideration and revision of the DRAFT;

  2. To inform the initiators of the public anti-corruption review about the results of their consideration;

  3. To establish a working group involving a broad range of stakeholders, including representatives of the judiciary, law enforcement bodies, bar associations, civil society expert organizations, and state specialized institutions, for the purpose of substantive discussion and the development of specific proposals for amendments to the draft Law proposed by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.


Chair of the Executive Board
Union of Associations "Confederation of Non-State Experts and Expert Organizations of Ukraine"
Iryna PED

Chair
Union of Associations "All-Ukrainian Independent Scientific and Research Expert Union"
Volodymyr IVANKOV

Chair
NGO "Association of Experts of Ukraine"
Oleksandr SEMENIUK

Chair
NGO "Association of Forensic Experts of Ukraine"
Oleksandr KRUT

Share