PORT AS EVIDENCE IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS OF LATVIA

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32353/acfs.1.2020.05

Keywords:

forensic expert, pre-trial examination, forensic examination, assessment of a forensic expert report as evidence.

Abstract

A forensic expert report is an important part of the evidence process in civil proceedings. An examination is possible both before the initiation of a civil case, and while its consideration. In some cases, it is expedient to conduct examination immediately, until the actual circumstances are not lost or changed, for example, in cases of property damage in fire, in water, in cases of vehicles damage in road accidents. An interested party has the right to ask a forensic expert to conduct an examination. However, according to the Civil Procedure Law of Latvia, the examination conducted at the initiative of one of the parties and not appointed by the court does not have the power to obtain a forensic expert opinion and is assessed as written evidence.

The article is devoted to the issues of assessing a forensic expert report as evidence in civil procedure.

References

Baumbach, A., Lauterbach, W., Albers, J., Hartmann, P. (2020). Zivilprozessordnung: ZPO. 78 Auflage. München, Verlag C.H. Beck [in Deutsch].

Bordāns, T. (2018). Ekspertīzes problemātika Civilprocesā. Jurista Vārds Nr.39 (1045) [in Latvian].

Bukovskis, V. (1933). Civilprocesa mācības grāmata. Rīga: Autora izdevums. 233 lpp. [in Latvian].

Civilprocesa likums (1999). Latvijas Vēstnesis, 326/330, 03.11.1998; Latvijas Republikas Saeimas un Ministru Kabineta Ziņotājs, 23, 03.12.1998 [in Latvian].

Čentoricka, M. (2018). Eksperta atzinums ir tikai daļa no lēmuma veidošanas gaitas. https:/ lvportals.lv/tiesas/299701-eksperta-atzinums-ir-tikai-dala-no-lemumaveidosanas-gaitas-2018 [in Latvian].

Eiropas Padomes dalībvalstu vadlīnijas par tiesas norīkotu ekspertu lomu tiesvedībā (2014). Eiropas tiesu sistēmu efektivitātes komisija. https:/ www.echr.coe.int/ Documents/Handbook_access_justice_LAV.pdf [in Latvian].

Heintzmann, W. (1985) Zivilprobrecht. Munchen. Heidelberg [ in Deutsch].

Kronis, I. (2016). Civilprocesuālo tiesību principa izpratne: teorētiski filozofiskais problēmas apskats. https:/ www.rsu.lv/sites/default/files/imce/Zinātnes%20 departaments/2016/VIII%20sekcija/civilprocesualo_tiesibu_princips.pdf

Latvijas Republikas Satversme (1922). Latvijas Vēstnesis, 43, 01.07.1993; Latvijas Republikas Saeimas un Ministru Kabineta Ziņotājs, 6, 31.03.1994; Valdības Vēstnesis, 141, 30.06.1922 ; Diena, 81, 29.04.1993 [in Latvian].

Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesas sēdes stenogramma (2010) http:/ www.satv.tiesa. gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2010-08-01_Stenogramma.pdf [in Latvian].

Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas spriedums (2013). https:/ tiesas.lv/nolemumi/ pdf/133788.pdf [in Latvian].

Latvijas Republikas Satversmes tiesas spriedums lietā Nr. 2012-06-01 (2012). http:/ www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2012-06-01_Spriedums.pdf [in Latvian].

Ose, D. (2019). Proccesuālās ekonomijas principa un tiesību uz taisnīgu tiesu mijiedarība. Jurista vārds Nr. 39 (1097) [in Latvian].

Tiesu ekspertu likums (2016). Latvijas Vēstnesis, 42, 01.03.2016 [in Latvian].

Downloads

Published

2020-06-09

How to Cite

Kudeikina, I. (2020). PORT AS EVIDENCE IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS OF LATVIA. Archives of Criminology and Forensic Sciences, 1, 73-79. https://doi.org/10.32353/acfs.1.2020.05