Evaluation of an Expert's Opinion by a Court in Administrative Proceedings

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive scholarly analysis of the court's evaluation of expert opinions in administrative judicial proceedings, with particular attention to the limits of judicial discretion and standards of proof. It is substantiated that the expert opinion constitutes a specific means of evidence based on the use of specialised knowledge and requires the court to maintain a balance between the freedom of inner conviction and procedural guarantees of a fair trial. The legal nature of expert opinions, the peculiarities of their evaluation in the context of the active role of the court, and the principle of official clarification of all circumstances of the case are examined. The article identifies the boundaries of judicial discretion in assessing expert opinions and reveals the role of standards of proof as a mechanism for ensuring the reasonableness and validity of judicial decisions. It is concluded that the development of doctrinally grounded approaches to the evaluation of expert opinions is essential for ensuring consistency in administrative judicial practice.