This report did not leave unexamined any point

[mahbubamim077]

7. The distinguished CUZZERI, “Procedura civile”, 2nd ed., vol. 1, no. 14, page 401, considers that the opinion, to constitute an impediment, must be given in the case in question. This is what happens in this case, so much so that it served as its basis. But, let us listen to CUZZERI's lesson:

“The opinion ( consiglio ) that makes the judge recusable is the one he gave in the case . Therefore, a simple opinion issued, even on a question identical to that under discussion in the case, but unrelated to it and without being consulted on it, but as a scientific opinion, certainly cannot constitute a reason for recusal. It is self-love, the interest that the judge may have, committed to supporting the thesis that he himself advocates in the case in dispute that makes him suspect. If it were, on the bulk sms colombia other hand, a simple opinion in the abstract , the motive for partiality would be missing and, consequently, the basis for recusal. If this were not the case, the judge should refrain from presenting the results of his own studies and from publishing works of jurisprudence, because from this they would use as a pretext to recusal him those who bring to court controversies on which he has discussed and ruled.”

8. And that is enough. There is no need to invoke, as would be so easy, other authorities. It is only necessary to clarify the role of the expert in the case. It is true that the judge, according to art. 258, is not obliged to accept the report. However, this does not mean that he can appoint a suspect expert, given that the latter's role, in the technical part, is primary. Let LOPES DA COSTA, cit., vol. 2, no. 333, page 344, speak for everyone:

“The expert in the report (visum et repertum) is a perceptive expert : he tells what he observed. In the conclusion, however, based on the expert data, he draws conclusions… He is then an expert - judge . And for this reason he is close to the functions of a judge . The same thing that the judge does with all complex evidentiary material, he performs with the reduced material that was indicated to him by the necessary and sufficient limits to answer the questions. The same inductive process (observation of the facts) and the same deductive process. The judge, from the greater, which is the legal norm, draws, through the lesser, which is the type of the records, the conclusion, which always appears in the decisive part of the sentence. For the expert, the greater is, in its syllogism, a rule of experience. The difference is only that the judge's conclusion has the same force as the law. The expert's, only when endorsed by the decision”.