THE QUERY PROJECT - European Commission - Europa

R E S u lt S o f t h E Q u E S t I o n n A I R E
In civil cases, neither Hungary nor Switzerland or Luxembourg
requires an oath.
In the other countries, the same rules as for penal cases
apply.
102) In a civil case, does the expert have to be under oath?
N
[22]
6
A
B
C
D
E
A: Yes
B:Yes, but as he already took an oath upon
certification, he may refer back to this oath
C: Generally not, unless requested
by one of the litigant parties
D: No
E: other *
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
* other: IT: only the court expert is required to be under oath
Experts are most frequently hired when the judge in a case
considers an expert’s opinion necessary, and nearly as frequently
when one of the litigant parties requests an opinion. In a quarter of
the countries (DE, IT, ES, SI, SK, NL, LU, BE), a third expert is sometimes
hired when the opinions of two private experts diverge.
In Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden, generally no experts
are consulted. The UK, Cyprus and Finland do not actually have a
system that uses court-hired experts.
103) In which situations are experts hired by the court?
(multiple answers possible)
A
B
N
[23]
C
D
E
A: generally, no experts are consulted
B: if the judge considers an expert's opinion
necessary
C: if one of the two litigant parties
requests an expert's opinion
E: other *
D: if a third expert is required in the case of
diverging opinions of two private experts
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
* other: CY: the court cannot hire experts
A joint expert’s opinion is very frequently valued higher than
that of a private one. 65% of respondents said that in their country
a joint expert’s opinion is either mostly or always valued higher
than that of a private expert. 20% of respondents said that the
joint expert’s opinion is rarely or never valued higher than a
private one’s.
104) Is the opinion of a joint expert valued higher than that of a private
one? Please indicate how frequently or strongly this is the case.
N
[20]
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
no, joint expert's
yes, always
opinion never valued higher valued higher
We asked respondents which options available to a judge they
preferred, in the event that joint and private experts’ opinions
diverge.
Approximately half the respondents would prefer the judge
to hire a third expert in such circumstances. France and Belgium
preferred to take the joint expert’s opinion, and disregard the
private one. And about 20% of respondents would favour the private
expert’s opinion if his arguments are obviously the stronger
ones.
It was also suggested that the judge should evaluate the
evidence and come up with his or her own opinion. Another suggestion
was consulting with more experts, and possibly testing
the crash scenario. It was commented that the third expert should
be one with a higher qualification. In Britain, there is never both a
joint, court-hired expert and a private, independently hired one
in the same case.
105) In your opinion, how is the judge meant to act when private and
joint (= independent) experts’ opinions diverge?
N
[20]
A
B
C
D
A: disregard the private expert's opinion in favour of
the joint expert's one
B: hire a third expert
C: favour the private expert's opinion, if his
arguments are obviously the stronger ones
D: other
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%