Section I: Common provisions.

The judge may appoint any person of his choice to enlighten him by findings, consultation or expert opinion on a question of fact that requires the insights of a technician.

The technician, vested with his powers by the judge by virtue of his qualification, must personally carry out the assignment entrusted to him. If the appointed technician is a legal entity, its legal representative shall submit to the judge for approval the name of the natural person or persons who will carry out the measure within the legal entity and on its behalf.

Technicians may be challenged on the same grounds as judges. In the case of a legal entity, the challenge may concern both the legal entity itself and the natural person(s) approved by the judge. The party who intends to challenge the technician must do so before the judge who appointed him or before the judge in charge of the review before the start of the operations or as soon as…

If the challenge is admitted, if the technician refuses the assignment, or if there is a legitimate impediment, the technician shall be replaced by the judge who appointed him or by the judge in charge of the review. The judge may also, at the request of the parties or of his own motion, replace the technician who fails in his duties, after having invited his explanations.

The judge who assigned the technician or the judge in charge of the review may increase or restrict the assignment given to the technician.

The commissioned technician must carry out his mission conscientiously, objectively and impartially.

The technician must give his opinion on the points for the examination of which he has been appointed. He may not answer any other questions, unless the parties agree in writing. He must never make legal assessments.

The technician must meet the deadlines set.

The judge cannot give the technician the task of conciliating the parties.

The supervising judge may be present at the technician’s operations. He may ask for explanations and set time limits.