DOI: 10.46340/eppd.2025.12.3.6
Petr Ševčík, JUDr
University of Technology and Economics in České Budějovice, Czech Republic
How to cite: Ševčík, P. (2025). Defining the Facts Before Starting the Preparation of an Expert Opinion in Civil Proceedings. Evropský politický a právní diskurz, 12, 3, 66-74. https://doi.org/10.46340/eppd.2025.12.3.6
Abstract
Expert evidence in the form of expert opinions is often referred to—particularly in civil proceedings – as the “corona probatiorum” as it frequently plays a decisive role in shaping both the factual and legal conclusions of the court. This article addresses a relatively narrow, yet practically significant issue: namely, the delineation of the initial factual framework prior to the commencement of expert evidence in civil proceedings, as well as the scope and limits of an expert’s own evidentiary initiative. Civil proceedings are specific in this regard due to their dependence on the observance of other procedural institutions, particularly the proper allocation of the burden of proof among the parties, and on the consistent adherence to the principle of adversariality. The aim of the article is first to explain the general nature of the issue to the reader within the context of civil procedure and then, through a comparative method, to analyse the approaches of three selected legal systems—Slovak, Czech, and German. These three jurisdictions have been chosen not only because of their geographical and historical proximity, but also due to their differing approaches to the regulation of expert activity in civil procedure, including different understandings of the expert’s role as a means of proof. The central question is whether these legal frameworks address the matter with a sufficient degree of legal certainty and responsibility, or whether they leave its resolution to judicial discretion or the actions of the parties within the specific context of individual proceedings, without firm legislative anchoring. The results of this comparison aim to contribute not only to a deeper theoretical understanding of the problem, but also to propose potential systemic improvements with a meaningful impact on legal practice and the day-to-day functioning of the courts.
Keywords: expert opinion, expert, Civil Procedure Code, taking of evidence, civil procedure, civil law.
References
Bělohlávek, A.J., & Hótová, R. (2011). Znalci v mezinárodním prostředí: v soudním řízení civilním a trestním, v rozhodčím řízení a v investičních sporech [Experts in the International Environment: in Civil and Criminal Litigation, in Arbitration Proceedings and in Investment Disputes]. Praha: C. H. Beck. [in Czech].
Dankovčik, J., et al. (2020). Zákon o znalcoch, tlmočníkoch a prekladateľoch: komentár [The Act on Experts, Interpreters and Translators: Commentary]. Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer. [in Czech].
Dörfl, L., et al. (2021). Zákon o znalcích, znaleckých kancelářích a znaleckých ústavech: komentář [Act on Experts, Expertise Offices and Expertise Institutes: Commentary]. Prague: C.H.Beck. [in Czech].
Dörfl, L. (2009) Zákon o znalcích a tlumočnících. Komentář [The Act on Experts and Interpreters. Commentary]. Prague: C. H. Beck. [in Czech].
Dörfl, L. (2020). Znalec a znalecký posudek v civilním řízení [Expert and Expert Opinion in Civil Proceedings]. Praha: C. H. Beck. [in Czech].
Dufek, Z. (2023). Rukověť znalce v oblasti oceňování majetku [Property Valuation Expert’s Handle]. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk. [in Czech].
Fryšták, M. (2021). Znalecké dokazování v trestním řízení [Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings]. Prague: Wolters Kluwer. [in Czech].
Hanák, J. (2021). Průvodce znalce v roce 2021 [Expert’s Guide in 2021]. Opava: Institute of Technical and Economic Expertise. [in Czech].
Hand, L. (1901). Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony. Harward Law Review, 15(40), 54.
Jäckel, H. (2014). Das Beweisrecht der ZPO. Ein Praxishandbuch für Richter und Rechtsanwälte [Evidence Law of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Practical Handbook for Judges and Lawyers]. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. [in German].
Křístek, L. (2017). Soudce a znalec [Judge and expert]. Soudce [Judge], XIX(10), 12-14. [in Czech].
Křístek, L. (2013). Znalectví [Expertise]. Prague: Wolters Kluwer. [in Czech].
Křístek, L. et al. (2021). Zákon o znalcích, znaleckých kancelářích a znaleckých ústavech: komentář [Act on Experts, Expert Offices and Expert Institutes: Commentary]. Prague: Leges. [in Czech].
Lavický, P. (2017). Důkazní břemeno v civilním řízení soudním [Burden of Proof in Civil Court Proceedings]. Prague: Leges. [in Czech].
Rauscher, T., et al. (2012). Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung [Munich Commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure]. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2, 355-1024. [in German].
Richter, M., & Púry, F. (2020). Vliv nového znaleckého práva na zjišťování škody v trestním řízení [The Impact of the New Expert Law on the Determination of Damages in Criminal Proceedings]. Bulletin advokacie [Advocacy Bulletin], 11. [in Czech].
Rosenberg, L., et al. (2010). Zivilprozessrecht [Civil Procedure Law]. Munich: C. H. Beck. [in German].
Spühler, K., et al. (2013). Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung [Swiss Code of Civil Procedure]. Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn. [in German].
Svoboda, K. (2009). Dokazování [Proof]. Prague: ASPI – Wolters Kluwer. [in Czech].
Ševčík, P., & Ullrich, L. (2015). Znalecké právo. Právní praxe [Expertise Law. Legal Practice]. Prague: C.H. Beck. [in Czech].
Ševčík, P. (2018). Dokazování znaleckým posudkem v občanském soudním řízení [Evidence by Expert Opinion in Civil Proceedings]: disertační práce [dissertation]. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. [in Czech].
Ševčík, P., et al. (2023). Zákon o znalcích, znaleckých kancelářích a znaleckých ústavech: praktický komentář. [The Act on Experts, Expertise Offices and Expertise Institutes: a practical commentary]. Prague: Wolters Kluwer. [in Czech].
Števček, M., et al. (2016). Civilný sporový poriadok: komentár [Civil Litigation Code: Commentary].
Prague: C.H. Beck. [in Czech].
