VIII-J-SS-68
EXPERT EVIDENCE. THE IMPROPER PROCESS BY THE THIRD PARTY EXPERT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION TO THE PROCEDURE SUCEPTIBLE OF BEING REGULARIZE.- As stated from the articles 14 section V and it’s second to last paragraph, article 15 section VII and it’s second to last paragraph, article 17 in its last two paragraphs and article 20 section VII, from the Federal Law of Contentious Administrative Proceeding, is appears that when offering an expert opinion evidence is the Administrative Proceeding, it is necessary to exhibit the proposed questionnaire. Likewise, from the before stated by the article 43 from the Federal Law of Contentious Administrative Proceeding, in relation with the articles 79 and 80 of the Federal Code of Civil Proceedings, which, is of supplementary application to the Federal Administrative Proceeding field, states that the designation of the third party expert is performed by this Court when there is an insufficient existence of elements to possibly reach the trial’s final decision, in light of the discrepancy in which the expert’s opinions proposed by both parties. In this sense, it results undeniable that the third party expert should answer all the questions of the questionnaire proposed by both parties, since this is the only way to reach the designated objective, which consists of providing the judge with the necessary elements to elucidate the existent contradictory issues is the expert’s opinions proposed by the parties, and to have sufficient information to reach the controversy’s final decision. To consider the opposite would imply that the proposed questionnaires would not be applicable to the procedure, reason that, if the third party expert does not answer to the proposed questions by the parties of their respective questionnaires, there exists a procedural violation, which should be regulated.
(Jurisprudential thesis approved by agreement G/23/2018)
PRECEDENTS:
VIII-P-SS-125 Administrative Proceeding No. 120/16-EC1-01-3/2794/16-PL-02-04.- Solved by the Plenary of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, in session of February 8, 2017, by unanimity of 11 favorable votes. Reporting Judge: Nora Elizabeth Urby Genel.- Secretary: Ana Patricia López López. (Thesis approved in session of September 6, 2017) F.C.A.J.J. Eight Era. Year II. No. 15. October 15. 2017. pg. 33 VII-P-SS-198 Administrative Proceeding No. 1113/14-EPI-01-2/AC5/1006/17-PL-09-04.- Solved by the Plenary of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, in session of February 8, 2017, by unanimity of 11 favorable votes. Reporting Judge: Nora Elizabeth Urby Genel.- Secretary: Ana Patricia López López. (Thesis approved in session of September 6, 2017) F.C.A.J.J. Eight Era. Year II. No. 15. October 15. 2017. pg. 131 VIII-P-SS-199 Administrative Proceeding No. 245/11-16-01-9/2114/17.PL.07.04.- Solved by the Plenary of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, in session of January 31, 2017, by unanimity of 11 favorable votes. Reporting Judge: Magada Sulema Mosri Gutiérrez.- Secretary: José Antonio Rivera Vargas. (Thesis approved in session of January 31, 2018) F.C.A.J.J. Eight Era. Year III. No. 20. March 2018. pg. 131 It was so resolved by the Plenary of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, in its session of July eleven of the year two thousand and eighteen commanding its