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

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

The Context of the Ruling

The case in question, which sees S. (S. A.) opposing G. (M. V.), concerns the power of the judge to choose between the conclusions of a court-appointed technical expert. The Court emphasized that, when conflicting expert opinions are presented, the judge cannot simply acknowledge the disagreement, thereby shifting the responsibilities onto the parties. This approach is not only inadequate but could also undermine the function of technical consultancy, turning the expert into a mere partisan technician rather than a neutral auxiliary.

Analysis of the Principle

"COURT-APPOINTED Technical consultancy - Divergent and irreconcilable conclusions provided by the same expert - Judge's choice - Obligatory nature - Content - Possibility of merely acknowledging the differences and conflicts - Exclusion. When a court-appointed technical expert is appointed during the proceedings and submits two reports with divergent and irreconcilable conclusions, the judge may adhere to one of the conclusions presented, or even deviate from them or order a new examination, but cannot limit themselves to merely acknowledging the conflict, shifting the gaps and inefficiencies of their auxiliary's work onto the party, thus ending up regarding them not as a court-appointed expert but as a partisan technician."

This principle clearly highlights that the judge has an active and obligatory role in deciding on the conclusions of the expert. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 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 of conflict between the parties. Therefore, the judge's choice is fundamental and cannot be avoided.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

  • The judge must always express a judgment on the received reports;
  • A simple acknowledgment of the conflicts is not permissible;
  • In the event of differing conclusions, the judge may order a new examination;
  • The consultancy must be a tool of clarity and not ambiguity.

These implications are fundamental to ensuring the fairness of the process 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, ruling No. 11091 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in clarifying the roles and responsibilities within the civil process. It not only strengthens the power of the judge in evaluating consultancies but also underscores the need to ensure that technical consultancies genuinely serve to clarify the issues at stake, preventing them from becoming tools of confusion or conflict between the parties. It is, therefore, essential that lawyers and technical consultants are aware of these directives to ensure a fair and transparent process.

Bianucci Law Firm