Findex II – Recommendations of Working Group 3: Requirements for experts to be registered in and stay on a directory
The WG discussed practices for assessing the applicant’s competence criteria to be registered in a judicial expert register on the basis of the results of a questionnaire answered by the Member States. The pros and cons of each practice were weighed. The focus was set on what verifying methods are acceptable in all Member States having adequate quality assurance as a result.
Initial registration as a judicial expert
| Verification of professional qualifications/education and professional experience | In line with the recommendations of WG1, judicial experts shall possess initial professional qualifications and/or professional education to guarantee an adequate level of theoretical knowledge; depending on the specific field of expertise, this can be proven by a vocational or academic education or training. In some cases, proof of a minimum of five years of professional experience may also be sufficient. To be submitted: diploma, certificates and a CV with a number of years of experience and references of employers or clients. Proof of membership of a professional association is supportive to the application, but not mandatory. |
| Verification of knowledge on procedural rules | Knowledge of the law and proceedings in the applicable legal system is of significant value and will therefore be expected from judicial experts. The verification of this knowledge however, is not common practice in the Member States. WG3 can therefore only recommend that Applicants should follow a training on proceedings, and if these are not available, they should be developed. WG1 wrote that judicial experts should have knowledge of procedural aspects, at least regarding their rights and obligations and their function within the legal system. This knowledge is therefore not a requirement but only a recommendation. WG3, however, recommends for judicial experts to pass a test of knowledge following a practice-oriented course on proceedings. If such a course is not available, it should be developed. There are examples in some countries on how to organise such a course. WG3 recommends that experts shall provide evidence of adherence to a code of conduct. This is already a widespread practice in the Member States. For countries that have no experience with such a code, the code of conduct developed in the EGLE project and also the Code of practice of EuroExpert can be used as examples. |
| Verification of ethics/ethical behaviour | For the verification of proof of ethical behaviour, it shall be necessary to require an official (state-issued) proof of good conduct or equivalent, issued for the right criteria. Further, it can be useful to ask for references on ethical behaviour. These references should be delivered by legal professionals (for instance, judges, prosecutors, lawyers or already registered experts). WG3 has made a recommendation on how to assess the awareness of the Applicant of the value and practical consequences of adhering to the universal concepts of independence and impartiality. WG3 suggests to test the basic knowledge and awareness of the meaning of independence and impartiality and their practical impact in a litigation context. |
Renewal of registration as a judicial expert
| Verification of professional qualifications/education and professional experience | When the renewal of the registration is due, WG3 recommends that proof of CPD is submitted with the Application. WG3 recommends that a written report can be submitted for review as well. This should not be mandatory because some experts are very rarely appointed because of the nature of their expertise. |
| Verification of knowledge on procedural rules | Due to the fact that procedural rules generally do not change a lot over time, WG3 recommends that experience as a judicial expert is sufficient proof of knowledge on proceedings. In that case an activity report as a demonstration experience should be submitted. |
| Verification of ethics ethical behaviour | WG3 recommends that the application for renewal contains a renewed version of the state issued document provided in the initial application. |
Post-registration
| Possibility of appealing the decision of registration denial | Justification of possible registration denial by the registering body should be given to the applicant, who should also be given the right to appeal the denial decision. |
| Duration of initial registration and renewal | The practice of an initial registration for a limited period, which is effective in 45% of the Member States, seems a reasonable option to propose. A proposal based on a 5-year duration – for both initial and renewal registrations – should meet an acceptable level of approval. |
| Oath | Almost 50% of the Member States ask for either an oath after registration or the formal approval of a charter document as part of the pre-registration procedure. This is why WG3 thinks that such a recommendation should also meet an acceptable level of approval. |
| Insurance requirements | Only five Member States mandatorily ask for evidence of insurance in civil responsibility. However, as taking out insurance is a responsible step, it can help to demonstrate the applicant’s understanding of the importance of a future role as an expert in a judicial context. But, on the other hand, it would generate for the registering body a task of checking a new document. To avoid this burden, WG3 recommends that this requirement should be included in the charter (or code of conduct) that might be made applicable for judicial experts. |
