According to Székely, “there should be no recourse to an expert on a legal question. It is the authority that has special expertise as to whether any relevant legislation […] exists and what it contains. If it has doubts, it should inquire, but it cannot call on an expert.” 5

According to Cséka, there is also no room for expert evidence in a question of law, because if the legislator had wanted to allow it, it would have indicated it in the text of the law. 6

According to Erdei, “it is even more fortunate that the practice is more realistic: the judge can ask the expert without any particular concern what the provision filling the framework says on the given question, whether there is any such provision at all. And probably no judge would be ashamed to admit that he has not read all the published legislation. The legal expert would assist in making the existence of the legislation governing the technical issues relevant to the case, and in particular its technical content, clear to the untrained authority and the parties, during the evidentiary procedure.”7

does not contain the legally required content of the opinion,

is not clear,

contradicts itself or the data provided to the expert, or

its correctness is seriously in doubt.

has access to the file of the proceedings, with the exceptions provided for by law;

is present at procedural acts;

may request information from the debtor, the victim, the witness, the person interested in the property, the other interested parties and the expert appointed in the proceedings;

may request further information, documents and clarification from the seconding authority;

may inspect, examine and take samples of tangible evidence and electronic data not handed over to him/her on the basis of the authority of the seconding authority;

during the investigation, may view and examine a person and physical evidence, electronic data and ask questions to the person;18

if more than one expert is conducting an examination in criminal proceedings, the experts notify each other of the examination they intend to conduct, and the notified expert may attend the examination conducted by the other expert. 19

the accused, the victim and the witness must submit to the expert examination or intervention (except for surgery and investigative procedures that constitute surgery);21

the victim and the witness are obliged to facilitate the expert’s examination in other ways (such a requirement cannot be defined for the accused, by analogy);22

on the basis of a specific order of the person who has made the appointment, the accused, the victim, the witness or the person in possession of the object in question must allow the expert to examine the object in his possession, even if this involves damage to or destruction of the object.23

Recommendation No R (81) 7 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on measures to facilitate access to justice sets out, in general terms, the “one expert” principle. It requires that, as far as possible, no more than one expert should be called upon in core proceedings.26

In the case of conflicting expert opinions, Hungarian case law follows the principle that it is only necessary to obtain a new expert opinion if the court cannot reasonably decide which expert’s opinion to accept as evidence on the basis of the statements of the experts heard at the hearing.27 According to the rules of the CPC , a third expert may be appointed only if there is still an irresolvable difference between the opinions of experts on the same fact to be proved, based on the same investigation material, on a technical issue which is essential for the decision of the case. The expert so appointed must give his opinion on the reasons for the discrepancy between the opinions and whether it is necessary to supplement any of the opinions or to obtain a new opinion.28 (I would note that under Hungarian case law it is a violation of the Convention if the accused person requests the appointment of a new expert and the court rejects this request despite the fact that the opinion of the expert originally appointed changes fundamentally as a result of the new documents. )29