Newsletter #29 - April 2017
English version

Find all our newsletters on our website
For free subscriptions, see end of page




By Robert Paillot, Vice President EEEI in charge of communication

In this issue, the last before our General Assembly in London on May 18 (see below), Béatrice Deshayes, our President's Council within the EEEI, comments on the "Draft report with recommendations to the Commission on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU."

This is a very important project, especially for the experts it mentions twice. The first time that a member state can designate an expert who will have the power to conduct investigations in another state without prior authorization. A second time to ask for the elaboration of a European directory of experts. It is therefore specifically mentioned here the "Find an Expert" project proposed by our Institute to the European Commission (Lire).

The second subject is specific to Belgian experts but could apply to other countries of the European Union. Dr. Yves Adriaenssens, President of the CNEJ-NCGD and Member of the EEEI and Etienne Claes, Vice-President of the NCEC and NCEE and Treasurer of the EEEI, give us their comments on the "Proposal to amend the Law on the National Register of Experts and Translators for Belgium, proposed by the Justice Committee of the Belgian Parliament. "

They deal in turn with the questions of diversity of experts, ethical rules, simultaneous activities for Justice and for an insurance company, the ill-defined role of a certain "approval committee" mentioned in this draft, the training of experts, the inclusion on the Belgian lists of experts from foreign countries benefiting from less stringent registration conditions in their country. They conclude by recalling that our Institute has published a "Guide to good practice in civil judicial expertise in the European Union" and that "a distinction must be made between continuing education and basic legal training as regards The law of expertise " (Lire).

As already mentioned, the General Assembly of our Institute will be held on 18 May in London. It will be particularly important because it is called upon to change the statutes and to renew the mandates of several members of the Executive Committee, some of whom have held office for several years in the Bureau and wish to "pass the hand".
You can still register to participate or give your power by following these links: (French),2333.html (English).
For all information, please contact Mrs Nathalie Sillon:

Good reading.

Robert Paillot







Draft report with recommendations to the Commission on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU

By Béatrice Deshayes, EEEI’s Comex Member, President's Council

On 10 February 2017, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament issued a "draft report with recommendations to the Commission on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU" (2015/2084 INL). This report can be downloaded here.

The report calls on the Commission to adopt, by 30 June 2018, a proposal for a legislative act on common minimum standards for civil proceedings, a first draft is appended to the report.

The proposed Directive is not intended to replace national procedures but to establish a set of common rules on the conduct of civil proceedings in all matters inside the scope of European Union law, while respecting national specificities.
Nothing, however, would prevent Member States from applying these rules also to civil disputes in strictly national scope, which, according to Parliament, would lead to efficiency benefits.

Judicial expertise (expertise near a Court) is explicitly mentioned twice in this report:
On the one hand, in point 11 of the preamble, it is pointed out that:

  • “Judges in one Member State should be able to appoint experts to conduct investigations in another Member State without any prior authorisation being necessary for their conduct”.
  • To facilitate judicial expertise and taking into account limitations in appointing sufficiently qualified experts in one Member State’s jurisdiction, for instance due to the technical sophistication of the case or the existence of direct or indirect links between the expert and the parties, a European directory of all national lists of experts should be created and kept up to date as part of the European e-justice portal”.

On the other hand, one of the minimum rules provided in article 11 is the following:

(read more)

Back to summary

Béatrice Deshayes







Comments on the proposal to amend the law on the national register of Experts and Translators for Belgium
(15 February 2017 – on behalf of the members of the Justice Commission of the Belgian Parliament)

By Dr. Yves Adriaenssens,  CNEJ - NCGD President, EEEI member
and Etienne Claes, CNEJ - NCGD Vice-President,
EEEI treasurer

The Nationaal College van Gerechtelijke Deskundigen (NCGD - CNEJ) (National College of Judicial Experts of Belgium) have been long time demanding party for the recognition of a status of judicial expert, as well as the establishment of a national register of experts.

In this respect, we expect a legislation which takes care of the interests of all stakeholders of the expertise - obviously including the experts - and, unlike the outcome of previous proposals on this subject, would grant a better justice.

The expert must act as neutral observer, collector of data and technical advisor to the judge, acting in compliance with her/his own professional ethics and deontological rules as Doctor, Architect, Accountant, Dentist, …

One can distinguish three “families” of experts:

  • Experts with proven academic background and peer recognition, who have to comply  with ethical rules set by law  (in Belgium, this applies for Doctors, Dentists, Architects, Accountants and Auditors)
  • Experts with a proven academic background, but who are not submitted to a code of ethics set by law (e.g. : civil engineers)
  • Various other kind of experts, with widely variable academic backgrounds, who are not submitted to ethic rules set by law.  

The Law has to be drafted bearing in mind these various categories of experts, in order to:

-  manage overriding rules, and/or conflict with existing ethics rules, as well as conflicts with codes of conducts to which experts are already submitted. Rules set for Health, or for Economic purposes, may sometimes conflict with rules set by Justice; 

 -  to enable the judiciary system to make sure every expert acts on the basis of accepted ethical rules, specifically in matters of independence and impartiality. Independence and impartiality are fundamental requirements, accepted as such by all stakeholders.

There is some reluctance from Courts to designate experts who also regularly intervene as technical advisors to insurance companies or to victims of bodily damage.

It is obvious that one cannot be judge and party in one specific case. Therefore, the oath given by an expert for each of her reports should guarantee his impartiality and independence and should be accepted by Courts as such.

The law provides the expert with an 8 days delay prior to confirm acceptance of any mission.

The formulation of the oath leaves no doubt for interpretation by the expert.

In our opinion, there ought not to be an absolute incompatibility between an intervention as a judicial expert and the accomplishment of another mission, in a separated context as technical expert to an insurance company or to private parties.

We would like to emphasize the fact that a Ministerial decree of 2007 did recognize “insurance medicine and medical expertise” as an official specialty for Doctors of medicine. Government thus recognized the specificity and complexity of the profession. The law actually emphasizes the need for experts to build experience, on behalf of all stakeholders of the expertise process.

Second, and very important for the creation of a register of court experts, medical expertise, which it defines as "an independent medical who conducts Research at the request of a judicial authority or one or more parties with the intention  to evaluate several of the following parameters :
    a) body injury;
    b) assessment of the need for and duration of a medical therapy;
    c) assessment of the application of the medical criteria under social law, civil law or insurance policy."
CNEJ-NCGD advocates transparency. Therefore, we recommend a system of 'disclosures', communication of any elements of a potential conflict of interest.

Should an ethical problem still occur then  NCGD – CNEJ proposes to intervene as a representative of the experts, as member of the acceptance commission.

(read more)

Back to summary

Yves Adriaenssens

Etienne Claes





EEEI - Institut Européen de l'Expertise et de l'Expert
38 rue de Villiers - 92300 Levallois-Perret - France
Tel : +33 (1) 41 49 96 01 - Fax : +33 (1) 41 49 02 89
E-mail :

Les articles complets sont disponibles sur notre site
Si vous n'êtes pas abonné à cette newsletter, vous pouvez demander à la recevoir gratuitement en cliquant sur les liens suivants :
- pour la version française :,916-.html
- pour la version anglaise :,917-.html