With the recent ruling no. 9023/2016, the Supreme Court returned to reiterate the principle that, about the Court-appointed Technical Consultant, the court shall reduce the compensation to CTU where the professional services are not completed within the deadline.

The judge called upon to decide on the liquidation of the fee, in fact, "shall take into account the difficulties, the completeness and the quality of the professional service provided" (art. 51, 1° comma, D.P.R. 115/2002) both in case of Court-appointed Technical Consultant benefit or not.

In addition, "if the performance has not been completed within the period originally established or within the extended one, due to supervening facts and not attributable to the auxiliary of the judge, for the fees which are to be calculated on the term of the engagement, the period after the expiry of the deadline, shall not be taken into account, and the other fees are reduced by one third"(art. 52, 2° comma, D.P.R. 115/2002).

These are the two major upheavals accepted by the Supreme Court against the ordinance by which the court had partly upheld the plaintiff claim against the liquidation decree of compensation, due to the CTU in charge.

In front of the Supreme Court, the applicant alleges the infringement of Article. 52, co. 1 and 2 D.P.R. n. 115 of 2002, as well as the inadequate statement of reasons, in accordance with art. 168 D.P.R. 115/2002, against the previous decision of doubling, by applying the maximum expected increase, the court-appointed technical consultant fee without giving reasons on the quality of the professional service, and without the reduction of the fourth fees (in accordance with the temporal applicable rules).

However, it has not been accepted the applicant complain about the inadequate statement of reasons, considered integrated per relationem, in connection with the claim for expences issued by the CACT.

The Supreme Court notes that it has been asked to decide on the ordinance that ruled on the opposition brought against the liquidation fees decree; therefore, due to the devolved connected to the complaints raised by the applicant, the motivation has been considered fair.