273
BZPPCFPC
CH
CH
Art. 60 Legge del 4 dicembre 1947 di procedura civile federale (PC)
PC; Titolo settimo: Prova; 2. Mezzi di prova; d. Periti; Referto
Art. 60 PC
Il perito deve presentare il suo referto motivato, o per iscritto, entro un termine da stabilire, o verbalmente, ad una udienza; in questo caso è steso processo verbale. Se sono stati nominati più periti, essi redigono in comune il loro referto, purché i loro pareri concordino; in caso di divergenza, presentano referti separati. Se il referto risponde ai requisiti necessari, viene trasmesso in copia alle parti. Esse possono proporne la completazione o la dilucidazione o chiedere una nuova perizia.
Il giudice formula oralmente in udienza o per iscritto i quesiti che ritiene necessari a dilucidare o completare il referto. Egli può far capo ad altri periti quando reputa insufficiente il referto. È applicabile l’articolo 58.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (7)
A-2871/2024 (Art. 60 Abs. 1 BZP)
Accessibility of Double-Decker Train Ramps for Wheelchair Users
Regulates the submission of expert reports and the opportunity for parties to comment.
IV.2017.00318 · zh (Art. 60 Abs. 1 BZP)
Disability Benefits Appeal Dismissed for Insufficient Impairment
Allows parties to request explanations or supplementary reports after an expert opinion.
B-7216/2014 (Art. 60 Abs. 1 BZP)
Public Procurement: Tunnel Construction Contract Award Upheld
Cited regarding party rights to request explanations, supplements, or a new appraisal after an expert report is submitted.
D-652/2013 (Art. 60 Abs. 2 BZP)
Asylum reconsideration: BFM failed to address inadmissibility due to health
Relevant for procedural aspects, invoked by the appellant.
UV.2007.00057 · zh (Art. 60 Abs. 1 BZP)
Insurance Benefits Termination Appeal Granted Due to Procedural Due Process Violations
This procedural rule concerning the right to respond to the expert opinion was cited in the reasoning leading up to the decision to annul the decision and remit the matter.
IV.2006.76 · sg (Art. 60 BZP)
Disability Benefits Appeal: Procedural Defect Cured, MEDAS Assessment Upheld
Cited in conjunction with other procedural rules concerning the right to be heard and the use of expert opinions, which was deemed healed.
35.2002.83 · ti (art. 60 PCF)
Cleaner v. Insurer (Hip Injury, Undervalued Residual Injury)
Cited in the reasoning regarding the insured's right to request clarifications, supplements, or a new expert opinion after the submission of an expert report.