Limitations of the judge's authority to resort to judicial expertise

Abstract

Legislative texts dealt with the legal regulation of the subject of expertise, whether by describing expertise as a means of proof that assists the judiciary in revealing the truth and contributing to the proper course of justice, or by describing the good as a profession that those who wish to practice it must be subject to regulatory and disciplinary conditions and rules governing them.  It was controversy.  And it continues to be raised about the scope of the judge’s discretion in the field of seeking assistance from experts in the cases presented to him, as well as the legal and mandatory power that the expert’s report enjoys within the scope of this authority, a controversy that is renewed whenever the legislator takes the initiative to address emerging issues of a nature  Young people with flexible legal texts that tolerate interpretation and interpretation, and perhaps the most prominent example of this is what followed the issuance of Law No. 17 of 1986 AD regarding medical liability in particular.

Therefore, we tried in this study to address the issue of expertise and the procedural rules regulating it contained in the texts of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, and the focus here was on - including an attempt to define and clarify the scope of the judge’s discretion in resorting to expertise as he is labeled “higher expert” and “expert expert,” as well as  His authority towards the continuity of the work of the delegated expert in the tasks assigned to him.  Emphasizing an important fact, which is that in the face of the stagnation of legislative texts and their sometimes shortcomings, the jurisprudence had the greatest role in framing the boundaries of this authority and defining its features.