This aspect must also be considered by the judge

nijhumnishita03

And thirdly and finally, the Chamber indicates that there will surely also be cases in which reports of official origin , "even having been prepared by authentic technicians, cannot be considered as expert evidence", something that occurs notably when the parties do not have opportunity to ask for explanations or clarifications. In that case, said reports will have no more value than what they have as administrative documents, and as such they will have to be valued, the ruling indicates. In the specific case examined, the Supreme Court highlights that the TSJ of Madrid has not made any comparative analysis of the arguments developed in the different reports and opinions collected in the proceedings , and has based its decision fundamentally on an alleged “greater objectivity and impartiality.

” of experts at the service of the Administration. Facade of the Court of Justice of Madrid (Photo: Google) This, the ruling says, “is not what the law requires,” since the TSJ “should have examined the Phone Number Data greater or lesser solidity of each of the expert opinions , taking into account their sources, their expository development, and even the professional prestige of its author. Limiting itself to saying that when a private expert and one from the Administration are present, greater credibility must be given to the latter, the contested ruling not only does not provide sufficient motivation for the way in which its conviction about the facts has been formed, but - what is Worse, it ends up implicitly granting the status of assessed or legal evidence to the opinions and reports coming from the Administration.”



The ruling abounds in the need to examine the expert opinions critically , “without automatically granting greater force to some of them simply because they come from the Administration.” The Supreme Court points out that, by admitting the appeal at the time and now by resolving it, “it has not at all gone into examining whether the assessment of the evidence is correct .” So much so that nothing said in this ruling allows us to infer whether this Chamber considers that the “End of day” box meets or does not meet the characteristics that legally justify a denial of the request for export authorization. This Chamber has limited itself to verifying that the contested ruling is based on an erroneous view of the rules governing the evaluation of evidence, especially with regard to reports and opinions coming from the Administration."