Background
After experiencing pain in her right knee following several falls, Mme W sought coverage under a personal-accident policy that her husband had obtained for her benefit from Allianz IARD. Allianz denied coverage, and the couple sued for enforcement of the policy and compensation for their losses.
The Colmar Court of Appeal rejected their claim on December 19, 2024. Before the Court of Cassation, the couple challenged the appellate court’s reliance on a court-appointed expert’s report. They argued that the expert’s conduct showed hostility and a lack of impartiality because he sent them a decisive document only hours before filing his final report, without explaining how he had obtained it, and accompanied it with a disparaging comment about a medical certificate concerning the aftermath of his clinical examination.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It held that parties seeking redress for irregularities affecting a court-appointed expert’s work may request annulment of the expert report under Article 175 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the nullity of procedural acts.
Because M. and Mme W had not requested annulment of the report, the Court of Appeal was not required to investigate whether the expert had breached his duty of impartiality. It was entitled to assess the report’s evidentiary value and weight. Requiring a party to seek annulment did not amount to excessive formalism or improperly restrict access to a court because it left the parties an effective means of challenging the evidence and did not prevent judicial consideration of their claims. The Court rejected the remaining grounds without a specially reasoned decision because they were manifestly incapable of supporting reversal.
Key Takeaways
- A party alleging irregularities in court-appointed expert proceedings must seek annulment of the expert report under Article 175 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- If annulment is not requested, the merits court need not separately investigate an alleged breach of the expert’s duty of impartiality and may assess the report’s evidentiary weight.
- The requirement to request annulment does not violate the right of access to a court under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights when an effective avenue for challenging the evidence remains available.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that objections to the conduct, objectivity, or impartiality of a court-appointed expert must be raised through the proper procedural remedy. Merely asking the merits court to disregard the report may not preserve the challenge when the party has not sought the report’s annulment.
For litigants relying on Article 6 fairness guarantees, the ruling also confirms that France’s procedural-nullity mechanism is compatible with access to justice because it provides an effective way to contest allegedly defective expert evidence without barring adjudication of the underlying claims.