Two reports land on the judge’s desk. One is labelled “court-appointed expert evidence (expertiză judiciară)” and runs to forty pages; the other, from the party’s expert, runs to twelve. The assumption that the first automatically wins is wrong. The judge does not count pages, but reads the reasoning: what method was used, what documents it rests on, whether every objective was answered, whether the final figure can be reconstructed step by step. Here is the expert report from the point of view of the person weighing it.
The expert report is a means of evidence: in criminal matters, under Article 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; in civil and administrative litigation, under the provisions on expert evidence in Article 330 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. The term says it all: the report enters the file as a persuasive element, not as a verdict. The consequence is that it does not bind the court. Article 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enshrines free assessment of evidence: evidence has no value fixed in advance by law; Article 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the same principle, with no pre-set hierarchy.
There is, then, no rule saying that the official expert report “beats” the party’s expert report. And yet, in disputes where the stakes are technical, expert evidence often weighs decisively: the judge is not an accountant, and when a report gives a clear, verifiable and complete calculation, it gives the judge the tool needed to decide. A solid report does not bind the court, but it persuades it. (On the weight of the party-appointed expert against the court-appointed expert, at length, in a separate analysis.)
The Code of Criminal Procedure, in Article 178, sets out the mandatory structure: an introductory part, a descriptive part (the operations, the methods) and the conclusions on the objectives. Beyond form, what convinces a judge comes down, almost always, to the same features.
The expert shows what method was used and why, not just the result. A calculation that does not say what documents it took into account and what it excluded is an assertion, not a demonstration.
The final figure can be reconstructed from the annexes. The judge, or the party-appointed expert, redoes the arithmetic and reaches the same result.
The objectives are the questions set by the court. A report that sidesteps an objective or answers it vaguely leaves a gap that the other side exploits.
Every statement points to a document in the file. Conclusions drawn “from experience”, not backed by documents, do not persuade.
The expert who stays on their own ground, the figures, is more credible than one who ventures into legal characterisation.
An example shows the difference. Two reports establish a VAT loss. The first states: “following the review, the loss is X lei”. The second sets out the table of operations, the rate applied to each, the supporting documents, the amounts excluded and the reason for exclusion, and the total is obtained by adding up the final column. The first asks the court to trust it; the second lets it check. Faced with evidence it can reconstruct itself, at the foundation of the evidence in tax litigation, the court has a rational reason to rely on it.
The most interesting situation arises when the official expert report and the party’s expert report reach different figures. Instinct suggests the court will prefer the “official” one. In reality, it will prefer the more rigorous report, whatever the label. A party report that shows, with documents, that the official expert ignored invoices, applied the wrong rate or included amounts in the loss that did not belong there can weigh more than the report it challenges.
This is where objections (obiecțiuni) come in, specific technical observations on the official report. They do not challenge the expert report “wholesale”, but show exactly where and why it is wrong. A well-drafted objection does not say “we disagree”, but “at item 14 the expert included invoice X, although it concerns an exempt transaction; correcting this reduces the base by amount Y”. Faced with such a demonstration, the court has a concrete reason to ask for clarification, a supplement or a new expert report.
When the contradictions between reports are major, or when the official report is insufficient or unconvincing, the court may order that the expert report be supplemented, that the expert be heard, or that a new expert report be carried out. Not every dissatisfaction justifies a new expert report, the court orders one when it finds a serious doubt about the correctness of the conclusions. This is precisely why well-constructed objections from the party-appointed expert turn a mere challenge into a verifiable technical ground.
The most common flaw is not a calculation error, but overstepping the expert’s competence. An expert who concludes that “the act amounts to tax evasion”, that “the defendant acted with intent” or that “the transaction is fictitious” encroaches on the court’s exclusive remit. Establishing guilt and the legal characterisation are not matters for expert evidence, but for judgment (Article 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Such a report is trimmed: the court keeps the technical part, the calculation, and discards the legal verdict. Paradoxically, an expert who “hands over” the legal conclusion weakens their own report, because it creates an impression of bias.
In tax evasion matters, a further step was taken through Decision no. 430 of 15 December 2025 of the ÎCCJ (Înta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Romania’s High Court of Cassation and Justice), delivered by the Panel for the Resolution of Points of Law in Criminal Matters. The context is the amendment of Article 10 of Legea nr. 241/2005 by Legea nr. 126/2024, which provides that the loss is determined on the basis of a specialist expert report, with the right of the suspect or defendant to take part in carrying it out.
The ÎCCJ held that failing to draw up, during the criminal investigation, the specialist expert report on the loss renders the indictment (rechizitoriu) irregular, with the consequence that the case is returned to the prosecutor. In these cases, the expert report is no longer just evidence assessed on the merits: it becomes a condition for the lawfulness of committal for trial, checked at the preliminary chamber stage. A tax inspection report (raport de inspecție fiscală), however detailed, does not stand in for this expert report, because it is not obtained with the procedural safeguards of criminal expert evidence. For the defence in a tax evasion case, this opens up a clear procedural tool.
From the court’s perspective, a report loses credibility through recurring mistakes. Each one is, in mirror image, an opening for the party-appointed expert’s objections.
The final figure is not found in the annexes and cannot be reconstructed.
The expert works from part of the documents, leaving out those favourable to one of the parties.
One or more objectives are left without a clear answer.
Conclusions on guilt or legal characterisation, the court’s ground, not the expert’s.
The result appears without it being possible to reconstruct the reasoning that led to it.
An excellent technical report does not win the case on its own. The figure must be translated into legal argument: a reduction in the tax base must be linked to the ground of unlawfulness of the tax act, often to the nullity or defect affecting the act; removing part of the loss must be connected to the absence of an element of the offence. This is the lawyer’s work, taking the expert’s conclusion and placing it within the architecture of the defence. The expert says “how much”; the lawyer says “what this how much means in law”.
The pattern repeats. A case where the prosecution had started from an imposing loss is decided, in substance, on an expert report showing that a significant part of the amount came from real transactions, with documents ignored during the investigation. The figure drops below the threshold that aggravates the charge; and the reduction, translated into law, changes the entire discussion of liability. It was not the rhetoric of the closing argument that moved the case, but a verifiable calculation, coupled with its translation into law. This is the practical lesson: it is not the loudest voice that persuades, but whoever gives the judge a piece of reasoning they can reconstruct and make their own.
No. The report is a means of evidence subject to free assessment (Article 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The court may accept it in full, in part, or set it aside with reasons, if other evidence contradicts it or if the report is flawed. What matters is the strength of the demonstration, not the formal authority of the document.
Yes, when it is more rigorous. The court does not prefer the label, but the verifiable calculation. A party report that shows, with documents, the flaws in the official report can lead the court to ask for clarification, a supplement or a new expert report and, sometimes, to adopt the party’s conclusions.
They overstep their competence. Guilt and legal characterisation are matters for the court alone. Such a report is trimmed: the technical part is kept and the legal verdict is discarded. What is more, overstepping competence weakens the credibility of the whole report.
Because, in tax evasion cases, it turns the specialist expert report on the loss from mere evidence into a condition for the lawfulness of the indictment. Its absence renders the initiating document irregular and leads to the case being returned to the prosecutor, a matter checked at the preliminary chamber stage.
Informative material, updated on 18 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts.
If the file contains a calculation that needs checking, the other analyses are grouped under the party-appointed tax expert. For the technical role in the defence, see tax expert evidence.
Time limits run from the date of communication. A first conversation clarifies what is being alleged, what you need to substantiate and how the defence is built, before an estimate becomes a tax assessment decision.