THE QUERY PROJECT - European Commission - Europa

In close to half of the countries, a reconstructionist is hired to
function as a joint expert in a court case, in an equal number of
countries, there is the option of either hiring a joint court expert,
or an independent private one. Only in Cyprus and Finland,
the reconstructionst is never hired to function as a joint court
expert.
106) In the legal system in your country, is a reconstructionist hired to
function as a joint expert, or as one of two expert witnesses?
N
[20]
A
B
C
B: hired as one of two expert witnesses
A: hired to function as a joint expert
in a court case
C: both options are possible
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
We wanted to know who makes the choice of hiring a particular
expert when the legal system uses joint court experts.
107) If the legal system uses a joint expert, is it a) the litigant parties
who agree on an expert to be chosen, or b) does the judge have the
sole decision on who to hire as an expert?
N
[19]
B
B: judge has the sole decision
on expert choice
A
A: litigant parties
agree on an expert
to be chosen
Seeing as in nearly three quarters of the countries it is the judge,
not the litigant parties, who chooses a joint expert, we asked how
– if at all – the judge’s choice could be vetoed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
R E S u lt S o f t h E Q u E S t I o n n A I R E
108) If it is the judge who chooses the expert, how can a party veto the
judge’s choice?
(multiple answers possible)
N
[14]
A: the party does not have to give any reasons for the veto
B: the party does not have to give any reasons, provided
the opposing party also vetoes the judge's choice
F: other
C: the party has to prove the expert to
be unsuitable for the case in question
D: the party cannot veto the judge's choice unless the
opposing party also vetoes it
E: none of the above - the judge's choice cannot be
vetoed
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
In the Eastern European countries, in Greece and the
Netherlands, a party can generally only veto the judge’s choice
by proving that he is unsuitable for the case in question.
In Austria, the party does not have to give any reason for the
veto.
In Germany and the Czech Republic, no reason has to be given
provided the opposing party also vetoes the judge’s choice.
In France, Portugal and Denmark, the judge’s choice cannot
be vetoed.
. .6. Pros and Cons of the two legal Systems - Opinions
We asked which of the two legal systems was considered more
just - the system using a joint expert, or the system using two
private experts, one for each party.
Roughly half of the respondents preferred the option of using
one joint expert, while nearly another half were of the opinion
that both options should be available in a legal system. The UK
and Cyprus, who both have ‘adversarial’ legal systems with two
private experts in place, preferred these.
Generally, approximately 50% of respondents preferred the
system already in place in their country.
109) Which of these two legal systems do you consider more just /
better?
N
[23]
A
B
C
A: one joint expert
B: two independent experts, one for each party
C: both options should be available
in a legal system
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
85% of those who preferred the joint expert system agreed that
it was more just because the joint expert is impartial / unbiased.