Análisis de la incidencia de la reforma al Código de Procedimiento Administrativo y de lo Contencioso Administrativo (Ley 2080 del 25 de enero de 2021) en la regulación y práctica de la prueba pericial dentro del proceso contencioso-administrativo

Abstract

The expert’s report in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction is a means of proof that, over the time, has had different changes on its regulation, being the most recent and significant the reformation of the Código de Procedimiento Administrativo y de lo Contencioso Administrativo (CPACA), adopted by Law 2080 of 2021. Based on this reform, multiple modifications were introduced in the dynamics of the contentious-administrative process, however, those that caused the greatest impact in jurisdictional matters are those that deal with the regulation of expert’s report, because, with the new legislation, the expert’s report went from being a subject mainly regulated by the Código de Procedimiento Civil (CPC), by then the Código General del Proceso (CGP), to have a special and independent regulation by the CPACA, in certain aspects. Accordingly, the objective of this investigation is to analyze what changes the regulation of expert’s report has suffered taking into account the reform to the CPACA adopted by Law 2080 of 2021, and to determine the advantages and disadvantages that the new law represents for the implementation of this evidence, the anterior starting from the execution of a comparative exercise between the legislation that regulated the expert’s opinion before and after the reform of the CPACA. As a result of the research work, it was concluded that with the modifications introduced by Law 2080 of 2021 regarding the expert’s opinion: (i) the procedure that should be given to the opinion was differentiated according to its type (requested, contributed or ex officio ); (ii) the rule of referral to the CGP was inverted, in the sense that now the expert’s evidence would be regulated first by the provisions of the CPACA and, in matters not regulated, by the CGP; (iii) the contradiction of the opinion at the hearing can be disregarded with if it is an expert’s opinion is delivered by a public entity.