Judgment No. 11091 of 2024: The Evaluation of the Conclusions of a Court-Appointed Technical Advisor

The recent order No. 11091 of April 24, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important insights into the powers of the judge in the context of court-appointed technical consultancy. In particular, it focuses on the situation where a consultant presents divergent and irreconcilable conclusions, highlighting the responsibilities and choices that the judge must make in such circumstances.

Context of the Judgment

The case at hand, which pits S. (S. A.) against G. (M. V.), concerns the judge's power to choose between the conclusions of a court-appointed technical advisor. The Court emphasized that, in cases where conflicting expert reports are presented, the judge cannot simply acknowledge the discrepancy, thereby shifting responsibility onto the parties. This approach is not only inadequate but could also compromise the function of technical consultancy, transforming the consultant into a mere party technician rather than a neutral auxiliary.

Analysis of the Ruling

"EX OFFICIO Court-appointed technical consultancy - Divergent and irreconcilable conclusions rendered by the same consultant - Judge's choice - Obligation - Content - Possibility of merely acknowledging differences and conflicts - Exclusion. If, during the proceedings, a court-appointed technical advisor is appointed who files two expert reports with conclusions that are divergent and irreconcilable, the judge may adhere to one of the proposed conclusions, or depart from them, or order a new assessment, but cannot limit themselves to acknowledging the conflict, thereby placing the shortcomings and inefficiencies of their auxiliary's work on the party, thus ultimately considering them not as a court-appointed consultant but as a party technician."

This ruling clearly highlights that the judge has an active and mandatory role in deciding on the consultant's conclusions. The rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Articles 62, 195, 196, and 116, confirm that court-appointed technical consultancy must serve to clarify technical issues and cannot become a mere tool for conflict between the parties. Therefore, the judge's choice is fundamental and cannot be avoided.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

• The judge must always express a judgment on the expert reports received;
• A mere acknowledgment of discrepancies is not permissible;
• In case of divergent conclusions, the judge may order a new assessment;
• The expert report must be a tool for clarity and not ambiguity.

These implications are crucial for ensuring the fairness of the proceedings and the protection of the rights of the parties involved. The Court, therefore, not only reiterates the importance of technical consultancy but also establishes a principle of responsibility for the judge, who must always actively intervene in the decision-making process.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order No. 11091 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in clarifying roles and responsibilities within civil proceedings. It not only strengthens the judge's power in evaluating expert reports but also emphasizes the need to ensure that technical consultancy truly serves to clarify the issues under discussion, preventing them from becoming instruments of confusion or conflict between the parties. It is, therefore, essential for lawyers and technical consultants to be aware of these directives to ensure a fair and transparent process.