The choice of the court-appointed technical consultant according to judgment no. 11221 of 2024

The recent order of the Court of Cassation no. 11221 of April 26, 2024, presided over by F. A. G., offers important food for thought on the role and appointment of the court-appointed technical consultant (CTU) in the context of civil proceedings. This decision, which rejects the appeal by M. (M. F. M.) against E. (L. F.), clarifies the scope of the trial judge's discretionary power and the limits of the Cassation Court's review.

The case under review

In this specific case, the Court of Appeal of Lecce had dealt with a paternity determination issue, in which M. contested the decision not to appoint a new CTU for blood analyses, instead requesting clarifications from the already appointed consultant. M. argued that the consultant was not competent for the requested investigation, as a new analysis was necessary, and therefore should have been replaced.

The ruling's headnote

Court-appointed technical consultant - Appointment - Criterion - Choice of the trial judge - Reviewability by the Court of Cassation - Exclusion - Case specifics. The choice of the technical consultant, entrusted, pursuant to art. 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), to the sound discretion of the trial judge, is excluded from the legitimacy review by the Court of Cassation. (In this case, the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the ground of appeal, with which the appellant had criticized the Court of Appeal for, in the context of paternity determination, instead of appointing a different technical consultant to perform blood analyses, having requested clarifications from the already appointed consultant, even though it concerned a completely new investigation for which the aforementioned was not competent, so much so that he had to use an auxiliary).

This headnote highlights how the choice of the CTU is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, who has the power to decide on the appointment based on the specific circumstances of the case. This means that the Court of Cassation cannot question such choices, unless there is a clear error of law.

Implications for future judgments

The decision of the Court of Cassation is part of a legal framework well-defined by articles 61 and 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern the appointment and conduct of the technical consultant. The implications of the judgment are manifold:

• Recognition of the trial judge's discretion in choosing the CTU.
• Limitation of the Court of Cassation's review, promoting greater stability of first-instance decisions.
• Encouragement to focus on the adequacy and competence of the CTU, rather than on mere replacement.

It is therefore essential that lawyers and the parties involved understand the limits of the reviewability of trial judges' decisions, especially in the area of technical consultations, in order to best address their procedural strategies.

Conclusions

In summary, order no. 11221 of 2024 represents an important reference point for all legal professionals, clarifying the boundaries between the discretionary power of the trial judge and the legitimacy review by the Court of Cassation. Careful management of technical consultations can make a difference in sensitive procedural outcomes, such as those related to paternity determination.