The Ruling Ordering a Forensic Examination: What It Must Contain

A ruling (in Ukrainian, “ukhvala”) — or, during a pre-trial investigation, a resolution (“postanova”) — ordering a forensic examination does more than set the study in motion. It defines its boundaries: what is to be examined, on the basis of which documents, and which questions must be answered. If this document lacks a mandatory element, poses vague questions, or gives an incomplete list of materials, the entire future opinion is called into question. Let us look at what a ruling ordering an examination must contain, and how a party to the case can check it and exercise its rights in good time.

Ruling or resolution: who orders an examination, and how

The form of the document depends on the stage and type of proceedings. During a pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings, an examination is initiated by a party — the prosecution or the defence (Articles 242–243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, or KPK): the prosecution engages an expert where grounds exist, while the defence has the right to do so independently on a contractual basis. Where a party cannot secure the expert’s access to the objects or materials, the expert is engaged by the investigating judge through a ruling (Article 244 KPK). The document that formalises such an engagement is traditionally called a resolution ordering an examination. During a trial — criminal, civil, commercial, or administrative — the examination is ordered by the court through a ruling.

The codes describe this procedure in similar terms, but with nuances. The relevant provisions are:

Type of proceedings	Who orders	Form of document	Governing provision
Commercial	commercial court	ruling	Art. 100 HPK
Civil	court	ruling	Art. 104 TsPK
Criminal (pre-trial)	party; investigating judge	resolution / ruling	Arts. 242–244 KPK
Criminal (trial)	court	ruling	Art. 332 KPK
Administrative	administrative court	ruling	relevant provisions of the KAS

Regardless of the document’s name, the law and the Ministry of Justice’s departmental Instruction (No. 53/5) — which rest on the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Activity” — impose essentially the same requirements on its content. These are the benchmarks against which the document you receive should be checked. The text of a court ruling later appears in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (YeDRSR), so the wording can be re-read even before you hold a copy in your hands.

Mandatory elements of the ruling

Beyond the general requisites of any procedural document (the name of the court or body, the case number, the date, the composition of the court), a ruling ordering an examination must contain four substantive elements, without which the study is flawed.

1. The name of the expert institution or the surname of the specific expert entrusted with the examination.
2. The questions put to the expert.
3. The objects of study and the materials provided to the expert.
4. The warning to the expert about criminal liability for a knowingly false opinion and for refusing, without good cause, to perform the assigned duties.

The institution or the specific expert

The ruling must clearly identify the performer: a state specialised institution, a specific research institute of forensic examinations, or the surname of a certified forensic expert. This is not a formality — whether the performer holds certification in the required specialty depends on it. For economic studies, these are specialties 11.1 (documents of accounting, tax records and reporting), 11.2 (documents on the economic activity of enterprises), and 11.3 (documents of financial and credit operations). If the assignment goes to an expert without the relevant qualification, the opinion is easy to unsettle later.

The questions put to the expert

This is the heart of the ruling. The questions must:

• concern facts, not law — the expert does not establish guilt, the elements of an offence, or the “lawfulness” of conduct;
• be unambiguous, admitting of no double reading;
• follow from the documents supplied — for every question the expert must have something to answer with;
• fall within the expert’s specialty.

A properly framed economic question reads like “Is the amount of debt under the contract confirmed by the documents?” or “Does the recording of transactions in the accounting records correspond to the primary documents?” By contrast, “Did tax evasion take place?” is a legal question: whether the elements of an offence are present is assessed by the court, not the expert. The same line matters when an examination is initiated on the materials of a State Tax Service (DPS) inspection or a Bureau of Economic Security (BEB) investigation — the expert can study the factual side of the calculations, but not the legal characterisation.

Objects of study and materials

The expert examines only what is provided — the expert does not gather evidence independently. So the ruling must contain a specific list of documents and objects: primary documents, accounting registers, financial statements, bank statements, contracts and, where needed, the case materials in specified volumes and pages. A general reference to “the case materials” without specifics is a classic source of trouble, because the expert is not obliged to search out what is needed across the entire case file.

Warning about criminal liability

A mandatory element is a note that the expert has been warned of criminal liability under Articles 384 and 385 of the Criminal Code (KK) — a knowingly false opinion and refusal to perform the assigned duties. In state institutions this warning is formalised by the expert’s written undertaking. The absence of such a warning casts doubt on the admissibility of the opinion as evidence.

Your rights when the ruling is issued

A party is not a passive observer. As early as the stage of ordering the examination, procedural law grants the parties specific rights — and it is here that the fate of the future opinion is decided.

• Familiarise yourself with the ruling (or resolution) ordering the examination — to see whom the study is entrusted to, which questions are posed, and which materials were handed over.
• Challenge the expert (vidvid) — if there are grounds to doubt impartiality or competence (family or professional ties to a party, prior involvement in the case in another capacity, an interest in the outcome).
• Propose your own or additional questions — to supplement, clarify or object to the opponent’s questions. The final set of questions is determined by the body ordering the examination, but an active stance at this stage directly shapes the result.

A practical tip: do not stay silent while the questions are being framed. If you say nothing, the expert will answer the opponent’s questions in the wording that suits them — and reversing that later is far harder and far more costly.

Forwarding materials and staying the proceedings

Once the ruling is issued, the body that ordered the examination forwards it, together with the objects of study, to the expert institution or expert. In practice, this is where time is lost: if the documents are collected incompletely or handed over as illegible copies, the expert returns the materials or requests additional ones, and the study starts later.

In court proceedings, ordering an examination is usually accompanied by a stay of the proceedings for the duration of the study — the court does not consider the case on the merits until it receives the opinion. So defects in the ruling that are noticed too late cost not only the quality of the opinion but also months of waiting. The document is worth checking straight away, not when the opinion is already finished.

Typical defects of the ruling

Over years of expert work, the same flaws recur most often — and all of them are predictable.

• Legal questions instead of factual ones. A request to assess “guilt,” “lawfulness,” or “the elements of a crime” goes beyond the expert’s competence, and no proper opinion can be given on such questions.
• An incomplete or missing list of documents. The ruling exists, but the primary documents the expert would need are not added to the case file. Without them, an economic examination is unfeasible.
• Vague wording. A question such as “study the financial condition of the enterprise,” with no specifics, will either be declined by the expert or interpreted at their own discretion — and the result will not match the party’s expectation.
• Questions outside the performer’s specialty. A single ruling tries to cover accounting, property valuation and handwriting analysis at once, entrusting all of it to one expert.
• No warning about liability, or no specific performer named.

What a defective ruling risks

The consequences of a poor ruling for a party are quite tangible.

The most common scenario is that the expert draws up a notice of the impossibility of providing an opinion: where the questions are legal, the documents are lacking, or they are contradictory, there is simply nothing on which to base a reasoned answer. Months of waiting pass, and no evidence appears in the case.

The second scenario is that an opinion formally exists but rests on a defective ruling, and this becomes grounds for challenging the opinion later: a party proves it inadmissible or unfounded, moves for a repeat or additional examination, and the court may disregard such evidence altogether. In the end, a defect embedded at the ordering stage “fires” during the assessment of evidence — when fixing anything is most expensive.

In brief: how to check the ruling in a minute

• Is a specific performer named — an institution or an expert with the required specialty?
• Are all the questions factual, with no legal ones among them?
• Is the wording unambiguous, and does it follow from the available documents?
• Is there a full list of objects and materials, rather than an abstract “case materials”?
• Is there a warning to the expert about liability under Articles 384–385 of the Criminal Code?
• Have you exercised your right to a challenge and to additional questions while it is still possible?

The success of an examination is determined before it is ordered: a correct ruling is half the evidentiary weight of the opinion. If you are preparing to order an economic examination, or have already received a ruling and have doubts about its wording, get in touch for a consultation — together we will check the questions, the list of objects, and the performer, so that the opinion truly works for your position.