Good practice in civil judicial expertise in the European Union / Les bonnes pratiques de l’expertise judiciaire civile dans l’Union européenne: Towards a European expertise / Vers une expertise européenne
()
About this ebook
Cofinancé par la Commission européenne, le projet EGLE (European Guide for Legal Expertise) a permis l’élaboration d’un Guide des bonnes pratiques de l’expertise judiciaire civile dans l’Union européenne.
Préfacée par Giorgio Santacroce, Premier président honoraire de la Cour de cassation italienne et conclue par François Paychère, Président du GT-QUAL (Conseil de l’Europe), le présent ouvrage enrichit et complète le Guide d’une série d’analyses et de réflexions sur leur mise en œuvre.
Related to Good practice in civil judicial expertise in the European Union / Les bonnes pratiques de l’expertise judiciaire civile dans l’Union européenne
Related ebooks
Les organismes européens de coopération territoriale Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLa fraude et le droit de l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDroit procédural des aides d'État: Textes et commentaires Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsL'Etat tiers en droit de l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsL'effectivité du droit de l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings1992-2012 : 20 ans de marché intérieur: le marché intérieur entre réalité et utopie Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLe Brexit: Enjeux régionaux, nationaux et internationaux Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLa société européenne: Droit et limites aux stratégies internationales de développement des entreprises Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsL'Unité des libertés de circulation Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLes dimensions de la reconnaissance mutuelle en droit de l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsManuel de droit européen des aides d'État Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSécurité maritime et intégration européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDroit européen des aides d'État Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLe nouveau droit européen des faillites internationales Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLe contrôle des fonds européens de cohésion: Evolutions, enjeux et perspectives Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDroit européen des médias Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLe droit des relations extérieures de l'Union européenne après le traité de Lisbonne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsObjectifs et compétences dans l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLes moyens d'ordre public devant la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLa démocratie dans l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLe contrôle parlementaire du principe de subsidiarité: Droit belge, néerlandais et luxembourgeois Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLes aides d'État de nature fiscale en droit de l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsContentieux du droit de la concurrence de l'Union européenne: Questions d'actualité et perspectives Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDroit pénal, langue et Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGuide pratique des passeports financiers européens: Fiches de guidance Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGuide pratique du labyrinthe communautaire: Tout comprendre des institutions européennes Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsL'autorité de la chose jugée en droit de l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsManuel de droit comparé des administrations européennes Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLes frontières de l'Union européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Law For You
De la démocratie en Amérique - Édition intégrale Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsComprendre le Droit simplement n°1: Introduction et notions juridiques Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Droit du commerce international: Les fondamentaux Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Peines, tortures et supplices Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDoctrine du droit Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMéthodologie de la recherche documentaire juridique Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Négocier, la clé du succès: Stratégies et compétences essentielles Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Introduction au droit Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Les crimes et les peines dans l'antiquité et dans les temps modernes Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCryptotrading Professionnel: Gagnez Votre Vie Avec Des Stratégies, Des Outils Et Des Techniques De Gestion Des Risques Éprouvés Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsApprendre la T.V.A.: Décrypter et comprendre les enjeux de la T.V.A. belge Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsVous saurez tout sur le permis: Un livre rassurant pour les maudits du volant Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLe mensonge: L'affaire du maire de Vence accusé injustement du viol de son petit-fils Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Dictionnaire juridique: Définitions, explications et correspondances Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Principes de base de la comptabilité: La comptabilité appliquée au droit belge Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsL'entreprise et la vente internationale de marchandises Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsApprendre la T.V.A.: Initiation au fonctionnement du système de la T.V.A. et notions de base (édition 2017) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDire et écrire le droit en français correct: Au plaisir des gens de robe - Couverture cartonnée Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsL'intelligence artificielle en procès: Plaidoyer pour une réglementation internationale et européenne Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIl Était Une Fois Les Droits De L’Homme… Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsGuide de l'acheteur immobilier: Gérer son projet immobilier en Belgique Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLes tueurs du Brabant démasqués Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Droit des contrats Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRGIE: Règlement Général sur les Installations Electriques Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsValorisation et cession d'entreprise: Opérations de fusions et acquisitions d'entreprises Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLa loi, expression de la volonté générale: Étude sur le concept de la loi dans la constitution de 1875 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFailles de sécurité et violation de données personnelles Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLa Délinquance fiscale et l'inutilité des recettes fiscales sur le développement de la Guinée Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Reviews for Good practice in civil judicial expertise in the European Union / Les bonnes pratiques de l’expertise judiciaire civile dans l’Union européenne
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Good practice in civil judicial expertise in the European Union / Les bonnes pratiques de l’expertise judiciaire civile dans l’Union européenne - Béatrice Deshayes
For all information on our funds and our new products in your area of specialisation, please consult our websites via www.larciergroup.com.
MadeInEU.jpg© Larcier Group s.a., 2016
Éditions Larcier
Rue Haute, 139 - Loft 6 - 1000 Bruxelles
All rights reserved for all countries.
It is prohibited, without the publisher’s prior consent in writing, partially or completely to reproduce this work (especially by photocopying), to store it in a database or to communicate it to the public, in whatsoever form or manner.
ISBN : 9782804495138
Déjà parus dans la même collection :
NADAUD S., Codifier le droit civil européen, 2008
GARCIA K., Le droit civil européen. Nouveau concept, nouvelle matière, 2008
FLORE D., Droit pénal européen. Les enjeux d’une justice pénale européenne, 2009
PARTSCH P.-E., Droit bancaire et financier européen, 2009
LO RUSSO R., Droit comptable européen, 2010
VAN RAEPENBUSCH S., Droit institutionnel de l’Union européenne, 2011
MARTIN L., L’Union européenne et l’économie de l’éducation. Émergence d’un système éducatif européen, 2011
SCHMITT M., Droit du travail de l’Union européenne, 2011
MATERNE T., La procédure en manquement d’état. Guide à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la cour de justice de l’Union européenne, 2012
RICARD-NIHOUL G., Pour une fédération européenne d’États nations, 2012
ESCANDE VARNIOL M.-C., LAULOM S., MAZUYER E., Quel droit social dans une Europe en crise ?, 2012
SCARAMOZZINO E., La télévision européenne face à la TV.2.0 ?, 2012
LEDUC F. et PIERRE PH., La réparation intégrale en Europe, 2012
ONOFREI A., La négociation des instruments financiers au regard de la directive MIF, 2012
AUVRET-FINCK J., Le Parlement européen après l’entrée en vigueur du Traité de Lisbonne, 2013
BROBERG M. et FENGER N., Le renvoi préjudiciel à la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, 2013
COTIGA A., Le droit européen des sociétés, 2013
BERNARDEAU L. et CHRISTIENNE J.-Ph., Les amendes en droit de la concurrence, 2013
MAHIEU S. (dir.), Contentieux de l’Union européenne, 2014
AUVRET-FINCK J. (dir.), Vers une relance de la politique de sécrutité et de défense commune ?, 2014
MÉNÈS-REDORAT V., Histoire du droit en Europe jusqu’à 1815, 2014
DEFOSSEZ A., Le dumping social dans l’Union européenne, 2014
VAN WAEYENBERGH A., Nouveaux instruments juridiques de l’Union européenne, 2015
CASTETS-RENARD C. (dir.), Quelle protection des données personnelles en Europe ?, 2015
PINON S., Les systèmes constitutionnels dans l’Union européenne, 2015
AUVRET-FINCK J. (dir.), Vers un partenariat transatlantique de l’Union européenne, 2015
VAN RAEPENBUSCH S., Droit institutionnel de l’Union européenne, 2e éd., 2016
PARTSCH Ph.-E., Droit bancaire et financier européen, 2e éd., 2016
NAOMÉ C., Le pourvoi devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, 2016
The European Expertise and Expert Institute pursues, among its objectives, the identification of possible convergences of national judicial expertise systems and proposes developments to improve the quality of judicial expertise carried out in Europe.
Co-financed by the European Commission, the project entitled EGLE (European Guide for Legal Expertise) has resulted in the Guide of good practices in civil judicial expertise in the European Union.
With a foreword by Giorgio Santacroce, Honorary First President of the Italian Court of Cassation and the conclusion by François Paychère, Chairman of the GT-QUAL (Council of Europe), the present book enriches and completes the Guide with a series of analysis and reflexions on their implementation.
Under the guidance of Philippe Jacquemin, vice-president and Béatrice Deshayes, deputy general secretary of the Institute, the text is a collection of contributions from Katharina Bleutge, Gilles Cuniberti, Luboš Dörfl, Lyubomir Gerdzhikov, Manfred Kaufmann, Jean-Raymond Lemaire and Alain Nuée.
Content
Foreword
by Jean-Raymond LEMAIRE
Presentation of the Jury
Preface
by Giorgio SANTACROCE
Object of the Guide
Chapter I. Definitions and limits
Chapter II. Conditions regulating when one should resort to judicial expertise
Chapter III. Choice and appointment of the Expert
Comments by Katharina BLEUTGE
Chapter IV. The expertise procedure
Comments by Prof. Gilles CUNIBERTI
Chapter V. Expert report
Comments by Dr Manfred KAUFMANN
Chapter VI. Remuneration of the Expert
Comments by Lyubomir GERDZHIKOV
Chapter VII. Statute of the Expert
Comments by Luboš DÖRFL
Conclusions
Annex
Proposal of a code of ethics of European Judicial Experts
by Alain NUÉE
General conclusion
by François PAYCHÈRE
Bibliography
Members of the Working Groups
EEEI factsheet
Table of contents
Foreword
Jean-Raymond LEMAIRE
President of the European Expertise and Expert Institute
As president of the European Expertise and Expert Institute, I am proud to introduce this Guide to Good Practices in Civil Judicial Expertise in the European Union.
It stems from over ten years of research, debates and discussions between stakeholders across Europe to improve judicial procedures and to ensure that citizens and companies increase their trust in justice, whether it be in their own Member States or when they are living or working in a host country and have to deal with cross-border issues.
For close to two years, with the financial support of the Directorate-General for Justice of the European Commission, under the name of EGLE – European Guide for Legal Expertise – a large community of judges, lawyers, Judicial Experts, academics and students of law regularly came together to discuss the essential aspects of civil Judicial Expertise, find ways of improving the various existing systems and to provide a working basis of the best practices in Europe.
The method of the consensus conference proved to be an extremely useful tool in building a consensus on the heterogeneous realities of judicial expertise and Judicial Experts. It made it possible to bring together in a participatory process the various practices and experiences from very different systems, from common law and civil law, and to draw out the best of these practices in order to propose a common foundation to improve civil judicial expertise.
The EGLE project took place around 25 organized meetings in 10 European countries, but also by email, conference calls and through the sharing of documents. Informally, the discussions that took place outside of meetings also paved the way for reflection by enabling the members of the working groups to discover other systems, other experiences and other practices.
The project was carried forward by the members of the working groups, the participants of the EGLE plenary conference, organized at the Italian Court of Cassation in Rome on 29 May 2015, who shared their reactions and input, and last but not least, by the Jury of 9 European figures who discussed, debated, and managed to draw from all these exchanges the essential practices from each country and experience.
The Jury met in camera for the first time in Rome and then for two more intense work sessions of which the last took place in Lisbon in September 2015. They highlighted the best of the various civil judicial expertise systems and in this Guide they put forward the outcome of their work, the points of convergence between the various Expert proceedings, namely of common law and civil law, of the EU States, whether older or more recent members.
The Jury’s conclusions contain many recommendations and ideas, as much for the countries where the recruitment, appointment and monitoring of the quality of Experts are very organized as for countries where this is not yet the case.
They also offer actual points of convergence between technical Experts appointed by judges and Expert witnesses, which is an unexpected but very important aspect of this project.
In sum, the Guide to Good Practices in Civil Judicial Expertise in the European Union is the result of work led by European professionals whose main aim is to improve and harmonize very different practices, based on a will to determine a strong, democratic, European model, at the service of the citizens and companies of the European Union. This consensus was reached in spite of current procedural and cultural differences and of any remaining wariness.
Participants learned to know and trust each other; this is one of the successes of this project, and not the least.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank very warmly all the members of the Jury, with a special mention for its President, Alain Nuée, as well as all the members of the working groups and of the organisation committee, the interpreters and translators, our partners, and the hosts of the meetings in Europe, for all their time and involvement, for their hard work and for their belief in the project.
Our most respectful thanks also go to President Giorgio Santacroce, First President of the Italian Court of Cassation, who encouraged and welcomed us in the institution that he presides. We would also like to thank the Directorate General Justice of the European Commission for its financial support, but also for its precious advice and encouragement throughout the project.
* *
*
Presentation of the Jury
Simona CRISTEA
Magistrate, Full Professor at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Law
Romania
Christiane FÉRAL-SCHUHL
Lawyer, founding partner of Féral-Schuhl / Sainte-Marie and past President of the Paris Bar
France
Eugenio GAY MONTALVO
Vice-President emeritus of the Spanish Constitutional Court
Academician
Spain
Alain NUÉE
President of the EGLE Jury and Organizing Committee
Honorary First President of the Appeal Court of Versailles
President of the Orientation Committee of the EEEI
France
Anne SANDERS
Associate Professor for Civil and Comparative Law
University of Bonn
Germany
Daniele SANTOSSUOSSO
Professor of Commercial Law at the University of La Sapienza in Rome
Italy
Jacques SLUYSMANS
Founding Partner at Van der Feltz Advocaten in The Hague and Professor of Expropriation Law at Radboud University in Nijmegen
Netherlands
Duarte NUNO VIEIRA
Full Professor of Forensic Medicine, Ethics and Medical Law, University of Coimbra
President of the European Council of Legal Medicine
Portugal
Thomas WALFORD
Governor of the Expert Witness Institute & Chief Executive of Expert Evidence Limited
United Kingdom
Preface
Giorgio SANTACROCE
Honorary First President of the Italian Court of Cassation
I was particularly happy, both personally and in the name of the Court of Cassation, to welcome to the solemn and austere Rome Courthouse, which is the headquarters of the Italian Judiciary Summit, the Plenary Conference on Civil Judicial Expertise in the European Union
, organized by the European Expertise and Expert Institute and the European Commission (DG Justice).
I would like to renew my warm greetings and sincere thanks to Mr Jean-Raymond Lemaire, President of EEEI, with whom I have built a strong and fruitful collaboration since the time when I was President of the Court of Appeal of Rome, when we started to try and highlight any possible convergence between the field of expertise and the impact of the role of the judge hearing the conclusions, through debates about the different practices used by the different European judicial systems.
I would also like to warmly thank Mr Alain Nuée, Honorary First President of the Court of Appeal of Versailles and Chairman of the EGLE project (European Guide for Legal Expertise), and Mr Philippe Jacquemin, Vice-President of EEEI.
The goal of this Conference was to draft the guidelines to good practices
for expertise, so that it could become homogeneous and help promote the standardization of the types of procedures in the judicial systems of the European Union Member States, and thus eliminate any possible hurdles which could limit the specific contribution of the Expert in the civilian sphere. This conference and the work that followed led to the creation of this consensual Guide to Good Practices which will no doubt improve the quality of the work of Experts, mainly helping them identify the origins of the problems which they have to examine.
And actually, the project carried by the institute which Mr Lemaire leads is much more ambitious and offers to achieve a plurality of means to increase the quality of expertise. Among those, the definition of relevant and ad hoc criteria to select Experts based on their professional qualifications, the creation of a unified list relying on national lists which exist in the different countries of the Union, and the definition of a common procedure which would ensure that each Expert has the necessary professional qualities. This possession could be verified periodically if necessary, not only to ensure a good qualified representation of Experts in specialized disciplines and a good level of rotation among them which would be appropriate, but also to control the quality and quantity of the activity pursued, the respect of the principles of impartiality and independence which should be at the heart of the work of any Expert and their compliance with the code of ethics for each professional body. Therefore, it is advisable to look for methods on how to choose Experts, methods based on stringent morality and competence parameters, as well as those of trust, given how important, and even key, the scientific input of an Expert can be to provide the judge with the exact reconstruction of facts, the causes of the disorder, and to validate the facts presented by the parties in an adversarial manner.
In the Italian doctrine and jurisprudence, we say and repeat that the expertise is not evidence, nor can it supplement a lack of evidence, but it is there to give a technical opinion, which is necessary or at least useful to assess the elements of proof already acquired, or even that its goal is to find a solution to questions which require specific technical knowledge. This is a direct continuation from the role and appointment of an ‘Expert’ who – expressly in the civil trial and implicitly in the criminal trial – is asked to carry out the function of an auxiliary to the judge (Art. 61, It. CCP), in the shaping of their conviction and the motivation of their decision. This function as an auxiliary is – one should point out – visibly increasing due to the particularity of certain processes and the increasing techno-scientific incidence of the matters concerned (one only has to think of DNA tests).
According to the doctrine, and using a mellifluous and efficient expression, the Expert is described as being ‘the eye of the judge’, which shows how great a need there is for the judge to pay even more attention to the choice of Experts. Thus, in Italy (and no doubt in many other Member States), the usual codes do not deal with this issue, leaving the choice of the Expert to the judge’s discretion, who often limits him or herself by promoting purely distributive criteria or favouring the Expert who has promised a quick turnaround on the report requested.
Adopting recommendations at a European level will thus allow us to redefine the procedures to create and revise these lists, and to create common procedures which will tend towards the strict compliance with the adversarial principle, a greater swiftness in writing and handing in the report, and closer monitoring of the allocation of costs among Experts. Finally, these joint processes should help improve the estimation and liquidation of damages, which, no doubt due to the specificity of certain issues, evaluations can deviate a lot.
Yet it also seems that one should not underestimate the need for a constant tracking of the progress of the Expert’s mission, especially when it comes to the report hand-in deadlines, the respect of the rules concerning the adversarial principle, the commitment and the diligence required to carry out the mission given. One should not forget that while the assessments made by the Expert are not binding, it is nonetheless true that the expertise is an objective source of evidence for the judges, that allows them to decide without pushing the investigation any further. The expertise then means the judge does not have to provide further justification for the reasons why they agree with the Expert’s conclusions, as long as the parties do not present any opposing arguments or when the expertise is irrelevant.
Once more I would like to emphasize the commendable nature of this initiative which promotes at a European level the creation of rules and practices that all the European Union Member States will share so that high quality Experts can be identified and appointed, and so we can share the same regulations, with each of us aware of its extremely delicate aspect and practical importance.
* *
*
Object of the Guide
0.1. The good practice recommendations in this Guide aim to strengthen the trust that judges, litigation parties and their counsels and, more generally, European Union citizens have in the opinions provided by Judicial Experts in Europe, to improve the quality of judicial decisions and to ensure the interoperability between Member States, in particular as regards cross-border litigation. In order to achieve these goals, these recommendations intend to ensure the recognition in all the European Union of Judicial Expert opinions provided by Judicial Experts from the Member States and to harmonize the standards applicable to judicial expertise and to the status of the Expert.
0.2. Most of the recommendations may be immediately implemented, others require the creation of ad hoc bodies, and others still, in certain Member States, may require the adaptation of civil procedure rules.
0.3. Their rapid generalization in all Member States would doubtless be facilitated by the creation of an independent civil procedure specific to cross-border litigation. Like the European Order for Payment, this procedure would be applied alongside existing procedures in the Member States. It would also make it easier to appoint Judicial Experts from any of the European Union States, by requiring that Experts who wish to work beyond the borders of their own States be familiar with only two procedures, that of their State of origin and this European Expert procedure.
* *
*
Chapter I. Definitions and limits
Text of the Guide
1.1. The following overarching principles should be applied to all Judicial Experts, be they appointed by the Court, by both parties, or by one or other of these parties with the aim of informing the judge on particular technical points.
1.2. They can therefore be applied, under certain conditions, to the three following categories of Experts, whose existence has been noted by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ):¹
• Technical Experts, who put their scientific and technical knowledge on issues of fact at the Court’s disposal.
• Expert Witnesses, who provide opinions from their expertise in technical matters to clarify the parties’ arguments.
• Legal Experts who can be consulted by the judge on specific issues regarding the rules, practices and rights applicable in foreign law, and more particularly on the law of a non-EU Member