EXPERT OPINION. ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE DEPENDS ON THE SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSIONS.- Of the foreseen in articles 43 and 46 fraction III, of the Federal Law of Contentious Administrative Proceeding, in relation to the jurisprudential thesis 2a./J. 97/2015 (10a.), I.3o.C. J/33 y VII-P-SS-198, issued by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, for the Third Collegiate Tribunal in Civil Matter of the First Circuit and by the Plenary of the Superior Chamber of this Federal Court of Administrative Justice, it is noted that the expert’s opinion fulfills a double function, that is, in one hand, to verify the facts that require technical, artistic or scientific knowledge that escape the common culture of the Judge and the people, its causes and its effects and, on the other hand, supply technical or scientific rules of the specialized experience of the experts, to form the conviction in the Judge over said facts and to illustrate him so he understands them better and can appreciate them correctly. It follows that for the assessment of the expert opinion evidence, the technical rules and the Judge experience rules are combined, that contribute to solve a specific case in accordance to sane reason and an experimental knowledge of things, at the time in which he must assess said proof in its entirety with the other means of conviction, carefully exposing the basis of his decision. For said reasons the opinions rendered in virtue of the offering of the expert opinion evidence, must be developed in a manner in which they generate conviction in the Judge in relation to the certainty and veracity of its conclusions, resulting indispensable for said effect that in said evidence, are exposed the duly sustained arguments with the experience and knowledge of the adjudicator and not only based in his opinion on the matter in question. In cases in which the Judge, by analyzing an expert’s opinion notices the lack of the referred conviction elements, will be able to determine not to grant evidentiary value to an expert opinion, even when this arises from an expert in the matter in question.
Administrative Proceedings No. 16957/15-17-07-8/3894/17-PL-02-04.- by the Plenary of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice in its session of January 17, 2018, by majority of 8 favorable votes and 3 dissenting votes.- Reporting Judge: Nora Elizabeth Urby Genel.- Secretary: Lic. Ana Patricia López López. (The thesis was approved in a session from September 19, 2018)