CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECTS OF EXPERT GEMOLOGICAL LEGAL RELATIONS

Abstract

The article presents the author's modern classification of subjects of gemological expert legal relations, which is generally as follows: 1) subjects of general regulation of gemological expertise relations – the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine; 2) subjects of special regulation and general management of gemological expertise relations – the CMU, local state administrations; 3) subjects of special management of gemological expertise relations – MJ, MIA, SSU, MF, MCSC; 4) subjects of local organization and management of gemological expertise relations – territorial branches of the SSI, SGCU, regional SЕAC, expert institutions of municipal ownership, accredited gemological laboratories, their officials; 5) subjects of direct performance of gemological examination – forensic experts, forensic experts who are not employees of the SSI, staff gemological experts of the SGCU, gemological experts accredited by the SGCU, other specialists (experts) in the relevant fields of knowledge in the manner and under the conditions determined by the Law on SE, an expert commission (commission or comprehensive examination); 6) subjects of initiation (appointment or ordering) of gemological examination – courts, law enforcement agencies, public or private executors, museums, business entities, legal entities or individuals: 7) permanent and temporary acting subjects of consultative and advisory gemological relations – the Coordination Council on Forensic Expertise, the Interagency Working Group on the Settlement of Issues of Expert Evaluation of Crushed Stone when Exported from Ukraine; 8) subjects of auxiliary gemological relations – the authorized body for import, export body, recipient (importer), consignor (exporter), art historians, and museums' fund and purchase commissions. The author proposes an approach to differentiating the subjects of expert gemological relations, as defined by gemological and forensic legislation, by the criterion of their main and additional functional purpose. The author reveals the controversial nature of the use of the terms «independent expert», «independent examination », «guarantees of the correctness of the expert's opinion».