Significant changes have recently been introduced regarding the appointment of judicial experts in civil proceedings. Another step toward digitalization.
Recent changes in the appointment of judicial experts
According to the Methodological Norms of December 10, 2024, which have already been published in the Official Gazette and will enter into force on May 15, 2025, a computerized system for the random appointment of judicial experts by the courts has been implemented. This system aims to ensure transparency and impartiality in the expert appointment process.
According to Article 331 of the Civil Procedure Code, if the parties do not agree on the appointment of the experts, they are designated by the court through a random draw from a list compiled and provided by the competent authorities. The implementation of the computerized system automates this process, eliminating manual intervention and reducing the risk of subjective influence.
This amendment is intended to improve the efficiency and fairness of the appointment of judicial experts, contributing to a more equitable administration of justice.
The methodological norms are drafted based on Law no. 139/2024, which enters into force on May 13, 2025, and amends Article 331 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (Law no. 134/2010). This law introduces a computerized system for the random appointment of judicial experts by the courts, in cases where the parties do not agree on the choice of the expert.
The methodological norms are approved by Order of the Ministry of Justice no. 2.853/C of December 10, 2024, published in the Official Gazette no. 1305 of December 23, 2024. These norms regulate the functioning of the computerized system for the random appointment of judicial experts by the courts.
The computerized system is managed by the Ministry of Justice and aims to ensure a fair distribution of cases among experts, taking into account each expert’s workload. Thus, greater transparency and efficiency are pursued in the process of appointing judicial experts.
The full text of the Methodological Norms:
“(1) These methodological norms regulate the functioning of the computerized system for the random appointment of judicial experts by the courts, as provided by the provisions of Article 331 paragraph (1) of Law no. 134/2010 regarding the Civil Procedure Code, republished, with subsequent amendments and completions, hereinafter referred to as the computerized system.”
“(2) The computerized system is a unique nationwide IT application, managed by the Ministry of Justice, which ensures the random appointment of judicial experts by the courts, based on the experts’ workload as reflected by the number of judicial expertise assignments allocated and not yet completed.”
“(3) The computerized system ensures the security and traceability of the data and operations performed. The system displays, for each case, a log of operations regarding the appointment and replacement of judicial experts, as well as the confirmation of the completion of the evidence administration through the expert report.”
“(4) The computerized system operates by automatically retrieving from the Ministry of Justice’s computerized records the data regarding individuals registered in the local offices’ records for technical and accounting judicial expertise within the courts and authorized, according to the law, to perform judicial expertise.”
“(5) These methodological norms also apply to specialists provided for in Article 13 of Government Ordinance no. 2/2000 regarding the organization of judicial and extrajudicial technical expertise, approved by Law no. 156/2002, with subsequent amendments and completions.”
Art. 2. –
“(1) Based on the lists containing active judicial experts registered in the local offices’ records for technical and accounting judicial expertise within the courts and taking into account the workload of each judicial expert, the computerized system randomly selects one or three judicial experts for their appointment by the courts to conduct the judicial expertise.”
“(2) To determine the workload of each judicial expert, the computerized system takes into account the number of judicial expertise assignments allocated and not yet completed at the time of access.”
“(3) The computerized system can display the list of active judicial experts authorized in the selected specialization(s) for each county or at the national level, as well as the workload of each of them.”
Art. 3. –
“(1) Access to the computerized system is only possible from configured and secured workstations operating at the headquarters of the courts.”
“(2) The court clerk accesses the computerized system using their user account.”
“(3) Prior to the random appointment, the court clerk enters into the computerized system the details regarding the case number and the court that ordered the judicial expertise.”
Art. 4. –
“(1) For the random appointment of the judicial expert, the court clerk selects the specialization(s) in which the judicial expertise has been ordered.”
“(2) If there are no active judicial experts authorized in the specialization(s) in which the judicial expertise has been ordered within the county where the court is located, the computerized system displays the message ‘No judicial expert identified in the county’ and automatically performs a new random selection of the judicial expert from the counties within the territorial jurisdiction of the appellate court in whose district the court is located.”
“(3) If there are no active judicial experts authorized in the specialization(s) in which the judicial expertise has been ordered within the appellate court mentioned in paragraph (2), the computerized system displays the message ‘No judicial expert identified in the appellate court’s jurisdiction’ and automatically performs a new random selection of the judicial expert from the counties within the territorial jurisdiction of the neighboring appellate courts.”
“(4) If there are no active judicial experts authorized in the specialization(s) in which the judicial expertise has been ordered within the counties in the territorial jurisdiction of the neighboring appellate courts, the computerized system displays the message ‘No judicial expert identified in the jurisdiction of the neighboring appellate courts’ and automatically performs a new random selection of the judicial expert at the national level.”
“(5) If there are no active judicial experts authorized in the specialization(s) in which the judicial expertise has been ordered at the national level, the computerized system displays the message ‘No judicial expert identified at the national level’.”
Art. 5. –
“(1) The computerized system will perform the random selection taking into account the experts’ workload in terms of the number of judicial expertise assignments allocated and not yet completed. Only judicial experts with the lowest number of allocated and unfinished judicial expertise assignments, and those who have a difference of no more than 2 allocated and unfinished judicial expertise assignments compared to them, will participate in the selection.”
“(2) The selection of the judicial expert is considered random even if they are the only judicial expert authorized in the specialization(s) in which the judicial expertise has been ordered.”
“(3) The computerized system ensures the display of the contact details of the randomly selected judicial expert and automatically records their appointment.”
“(4) The result of the selection is printed by the court clerk and attached to the case file.”
“(5) After the appointment of the judicial expert, the computerized system automatically notifies, via email, the local office for technical and accounting judicial expertise within the court regarding the appointment of the judicial expert registered in its records.”
“(6) If the judicial expert is appointed by the court as a result of the parties’ agreement, the court clerk enters into the computerized system, at the hearing date, the details regarding the case number and the court that ordered the judicial expertise, as well as the name of the judicial expert.”
“(7) Except for cases where the provisions of Article 331, paragraph (1) of Law no. 134/2010 regarding the Civil Procedure Code, republished, with subsequent amendments and completions, apply, the local offices for technical and accounting judicial expertise within the courts ensure, based on the user account held, the immediate entry into the computerized system of the received data regarding the case number and the criminal investigation bodies, judicial authorities, or other bodies with jurisdictional responsibilities that ordered the judicial expertise, both regarding the appointment or replacement of the judicial expert, as well as the completion of the evidence administration with the expertise.”
Art. 6. –
“(1) In the situation where, after the appointment, the court orders the replacement of the judicial expert, the court clerk makes, through the computerized system, a new random selection, excluding the replaced judicial expert. The computerized system automatically notifies, via email, the local office for technical and accounting judicial expertise within the court regarding the replacement of the judicial expert.”
“(2) In the situation where, after the appointment, the judicial expert’s status is suspended, or they are removed from the register, or if disciplinary action is taken against the judicial expert, including suspension of the right to perform judicial expertise or withdrawal of the judicial expert status, the computerized system automatically notifies, via email, the courts where cases are pending in which the judicial expert has not completed the expertise.”
“(3) On the court date when the court confirms the completion of the evidence administration with the expertise, the court clerk registers the completion of the judicial expertise in the computerized system, and the system automatically notifies, via email, the local office for technical and accounting judicial expertise within the tribunal regarding the completion of the evidence administration with the expertise.”
