Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
S 88 44•Late objection to appointed expert remains admissible
S 88 44Übriges Gericht29.04.1991Not Examined
Von Omnilex extrahiert
The court held that, even if a party fails to object within the deadline set for comments on a proposed expert, the late objection is not rendered irrelevant. The missed deadline may, however, be taken into account later when deciding costs. The excerpt does not contain the operative part of the decision.
§ 93 Abs. 2 VRG; expert challenge and late objection; failure to comply with a judicially fixed deadline does not per se extinguish the party’s right to object to the proposed expert. Where the law does not prescribe a specific expert, the parties must be afforded an opportunity to raise objections, and the recusal rules of §§ 14–16 VRG apply by analogy. Non-compliance with the deadline may instead be considered at the stage of costs under § 15 Abs. 3 VRG (consid. 3).
Aus den Erwägungen:
Von Omnilex extrahiert
Whether a late objection to the proposed expert is inadmissible because the party missed the court-set deadline.
No. Missing the judicial deadline does not make the late objection legally irrelevant.
Where no specific expert is prescribed, the parties must be given the opportunity to object to the intended expert; the procedural deadline affects only the later assessment of costs, not the substantive admissibility of the objection.
Whether the missed deadline may be taken into account in the costs decision.
Yes, the court noted that the effect of the missed deadline may have to be considered in the final costs allocation against the complainant.
The court expressly reserved the question of if and to what extent the failure to meet the deadline should be reflected in costs under the VRG.
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.