Part 1: Criteria for qualified judicial experts2
Judicial experts must disclose high standards of technical knowledge and
practical experience
| Initial Professional education or qualifications | Judicial experts shall possess initial professional qualifications and/or professional education to guarantee the necessary level of theoretical knowledge, according to their specific field of expertise. This can be verified/proved by higher education or vocational education and training3. In order to support their application, candidates shall be able to submit diplomas, certificates and/or a CV with a number of years of experience in their profession and/or references of employers, clients, etc. |
| Professional experience | Experts shall have professional practical experience of at least three years in their field of expertise. The position of a judicial expert is, generally, considered less suitable for beginners. Membership in a professional body should not be mandatory. However, membership of such a professional body can be supportive to the application. |
| Experience in Expertise | To give evidence of expertise experience as judicial expert shall not be mandatory to apply for registration4. However, experience as judicial expert can be supportive to the application. |
| Ability to present clearly and intelligibly an expert opinion that may be readily understood by a non-expert or adequate level of linguistic ability, especially in oral and written expression. | Experts shall be able to present the results of their assessment in a comprehensible manner and in a structured way, towards the parties, the lawyers and the judge. An evaluation may be organised by the registration body in order to verify this ability. |
| Continuous professional education | Experts shall follow continuous professional development (CPD)5 |
| Knowledge of procedural rules | Judicial experts shall be aware of the requirements of procedural rules in the jurisdiction of their country of register. Knowledge of the law and proceedings in the legal system of the country of registration is of significant value. Experts shall have knowledge of procedural aspects at least regarding their rights and obligations and their function within the legal system6. However, to demonstrate such a knowledge also for acting in another Member state should not be mandatory to be listed at EU level7. |
Judicial experts must be “fit and proper”
Ethics
Ethical behavior is fundamental to build the desired level of confidence in any expertise service. Therefore, judicial experts must always guarantee8:
- Independence
- Impartiality
- Objectivity
- Integrity
| Independence | Judicial experts shall not do anything in the course of their function that, in any manner, compromises or impairs or is likely to compromise or impair their independence |
| Impartiality | Judicial experts shall not do anything in the course of their function that, in any manner, compromises or impairs or is likely to compromise or impair their impartiality. Judicial experts shall form their own independent view on the matter. They should be resilient to any pressure from any side. Their opinions must be fact driven and based upon their own investigation. |
| Objectivity | Judicial experts shall not do anything in the course of their function that, in any manner, compromises or impairs, or is likely to compromise or impair their objectivity. |
| Integrity and conflicts of interest | For judicial experts, acting ethically implies being free of any conflict of interests. Judicial experts shall not accept assignments without full disclosure to the court and parties of any actual or potential conflict of interests. If any conflict of interest occurs after the assignment has been accepted, judicial experts shall immediately notify the court and, in appropriate cases, ask for resigning the appointment. In any case, judicial experts should carry out a routine risk identification prior to the acceptance of assignments9. |
| Duty to the court | There is an overriding duty to the court to provide independent, impartial and objective expert evidence10. |
| Confidentiality and professional secrecy | Judicial experts shall not do anything in the course of their function that, in any manner, compromises or impairs or is likely to compromise or impair their duty to maintain confidentiality. Judicial experts are subject to professional secrecy. They shall not reveal any relevant information11 that may come to their knowledge in the course of their work, including any findings and conclusions. The information intended for the parties and/or the judge shall not be disclosed to the public or third parties outside the legal proceedings, unless authorized by the court. |
| Duty for on-Time delivery | Timely completion of the task given to them is essential for judicial experts to guarantee reliability. Therefore, judicial experts should have a realistic overview of their deadlines and commitments in order to meet them, within agreed budget, when applicable. Judicial experts shall respect deadlines set by the court to guarantee an efficient trial12. |
| Verification of the ethical criteria | In order to favor the understanding, the adherence and the implementation of the ethical principles required from judicial experts, they should adhere to a code of conduct13 through a formal act14. Judicial experts should have no relevant criminal record, nor be susceptible to bribes or inducements other than the fees as allowed by the law or the judge15. Moreover, the ethical criteria can be verified by asking any applicant to produce an official (State issued) proof of good conduct or equivalent, and/or references delivered for instance by judges, prosecutors, lawyers, or already registered experts. |
| No age limit | There should not be an age limit for judicial experts, neither a minimum nor a maximum age for registration. |
| Transparency of expert procedure | Judicial experts shall fully assess the situation and conduct a structured and transparent reasoning supporting their conclusions. In particular, possible existing discussions and even controversies in the field of the expertise must be exposed. Judicial experts shall differentiate between facts and assumptions (and, where relevant, any underlying scientific or in any other way acknowledged methodology) upon which their findings are based. Judicial experts should also identify and overcome possible implicit bias. |
2 National legal regimes can provide for experts to be individuals or legal entities (public or private laboratories, universities, etc.) as long as, for the latter, at least one private individual within the legal entity is a Judicial Expert and takes on the responsibility for the report and as long as the organisation of the legal entity guarantees the independence of the expert who is signing the report.
Guide to Good Practices in Civil Judicial Expertise in the European Union, Chapter I, Definitions 1.6.
3 The Bologna Process 2020 — The European Higher Education Area in the new decade. See:
https://www.ehea.info/
4 If this were required, there would be literally no chance for aspiring experts to create a career entry. In case applicants for registration have expertise experience (for example: outside of courts, private assignments) this would be an add-on.
5 As technology and scientific methods develop faster and faster, experts constantly shall be expected to
adapt their working methods. It is therefore important to make sure they have regular learning time built into their schedule.
6 If applicants cannot demonstrate a knowledge of the procedural aspects within their home jurisdictions, they should follow a training on these aspects, with a test at the end.
7 If the judicial expert has no such procedural knowledge, the judge may, for example, decide to appoint at least two judicial experts: the foreign judicial expert with a very focused technical knowledge and a local judicial expert with a more general technical knowledge but with the procedural knowledge.
8 See also: European Guide for Legal Expertise (EGLE), Guide to Good Practices in Civil Judicial Expertise
in the European Union, European Expertise & Expert Institute (EEEI) 2015
(https://rm.coe.int/168074827a).
9 This analysis should include conflict of interest, legal risks, liability as well as accountability. It is up to the Member State whether to require or to forbid an insurance policy.
10 This duty, however, should not be misunderstood as an anticipatory obedience for state authorities or as a recipient of politically driven orders.
11 Such as AML disclosure which is subject to specific EU rules.
12 Of course, this requirement can be adapted if the deadlines imposed are too short, for example considering the complexity of the case, or due to unforeseen circumstances, or if the parties in the proceedings do not allow experts to work effectively (for example, by not providing documents in time).
13 The code of conduct developed in the EGLE project (https://experts-institute.eu/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/2016-01-07-eeei-guide-to-good-pratices-egle-en-brochure.pdf) and also the Code of practice of EuroExpert can be used as examples (https://euroexpert.org/standards/code-of- practice).
14 In some member states, this act could be an oath.
15 For example, due to personal high, disproportionate debts.
Français