The principal characteristics in the civil law tradition is the codified law and has its

basis on the principle of legality and equality. It is the same precedent as the
common-law countries, the difference is in the way they operate.

(VICENTE, Drio Moura. Portugal e a arbitragem internacional. Revista de Arbitragem e

Mediao, So Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, ano 1, v. 2, maio.-ago.2004.)

In the civil law countries, the judges are investigators, in the sense that they take the
lead in the proceedings. Lawyers still represent their clients, but they have a less central role if
compared to the common-law tradition. And, although there are a lot of differences between the
two judicial traditions, one of the biggest one is the matter of how the opinions of experts should
be made available to the tribunal.
(Civil Law vs. Common Law: Ten Differences the International Litigator Should
Know, Global Counsel Handbook: Dispute Resolution 2003/2004, London, 2004, 13-18)
The common-law approach is to treat expert testimony as simply, another aspect of the
adversarial system: each side is expected to find its own expert on a subject about which the
tribunal is likely to need technical information or explanations. When, as tends to happen, those
experts disagree, the tribunal is left to decide for itself which information or explanation to
believe.
The civil law approach is for the tribunal to appoint its own expert, who will conduct his
or her own inquiry into the subject in controversy. That inquiry may be elaborate, and will often
include hearing from the parties or from experts put forward by the parties. The tribunals expert
then reports to the tribunal. While parties may be given an opportunity to challenge the findings
of the tribunals expert, the experts report to the tribunal often becomes the finding of the
tribunal on the subject entrusted to the expert.
(Bridging the Common Law Civil Law Divide in Arbitration, Arbitration
International, 2002, 59 65 (mit John M. Townsend))
As such, In the common-law view, the role of the judge is to comprehend the party
arguments and determine who presented a better argument, while in the civil law perspective the
expectation is that the tribunal find the truth, even if it is just a judicial truth.

As an example of the role of the judge/arbitrator in a civil law country, such as Brazil, the
art. 22 of the Arbitration Law, contains that the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal may determine
the need of an expert witness, by the requirement of one of the parties or ex officio:

Article 22. The sole arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal, either ex officio or at the parties
request, may hear parties and witnesses testimony and may rule on the production of
expert evidence, and other evidence deemed necessary.

The same can be found in the German Arbitration Act:

Section 1049 (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may
appoint one or more experts to report to it on specific issues to be determined by the
arbitral tribunal. It may also require a party to give the expert any relevant information
or to produce, or to provide access to, any relevant documents or property for his
inspection.

There are a lot of mistrusts towards the party appointed experts from the civil law point
of view. First, there is a worry that the party appointed wont be impartial and independent
because the expert is getting paid by the party to be there. Second, the parties could look for an
expert to present their point of view in the most favorable way to the tribunal, even if that point
of view is not a consensus.
Second, there is an extra confidence in the judiciary as being impartial and that its only
objective is to find the truth. Because these individuals are working for the government, they are
not receiving anything by the parties and because they receive guidelines by the judge, its
believed that they are impartial and independent and that they will provide the truth in their
findings.