According to Writing La Presse de la Manche
Judge in Chambers Administrative Court of Caen refused to order a second opinion in the file poor handling of the crossing from Teurthéville-Bocage, as requested by the Ministry channel.
In May 2022the first expert had already submitted the first report on the subject at the request of the same administrative court in Caen: he was commissioned describe “faults” affecting gutters the implementation of which was entrusted to a simplified joint-stock company mastellotoof Carpiquet, near Caen.
Request for “frustrating” expertise
» Expert he had to exactly indicate “their importance, their date of origin, their development”
and to say whether they were “caused by the design of the works, insufficient management of the construction by the Ministry, one or more errors in execution, non-compliance with contractual provisions or rules of technology or any other reason”. Whetherthere were “several” causes of malfunctions , then the expert was to calculate “the share due to each of them”. In general, it should“to provide the court with any information or assessment that it considers useful for the resolution of the dispute
and in particular to enable the determination of the resulting liability”. The expert determined so the Ministry’s share of responsibility at “30%” : as a project manager, he did not “enforce” the specifications of specific technical clauses(CCTP) . “ He should also have asked for soil tests to be carried out
“, Refers to the Administrative Court of Caen in the decision of August 23, 2022, which has just been published. SAS Mastellotto’s liability was also rated at “30%” by the expert: the contract holder, “failed to respect” the same CCTP and “failed to control the performance” of his subcontractor IDFN tiles.
Carpiquet “carried out earthworks” and “noted poor ground conditions without informing the project manager”. Finally, responsibility of IDFN Paving is also involved in this story according to the expert who assessed it to “40%” : Mastellotto subcontractor
Videos: currently on Actu
In the expert opinion, “unspecified low-quality land”, “concrete of very poor quality and insufficient thickness” or even “absence of expansion joints planned every five meters” were recorded.
Judge of the Administrative Court of Caen
“The requested request for a second opinion is therefore frustrating and must be denied. »
: Expertise is frustrating when it is not helpful to the resolution of the dispute, such as when it is ordered, when the file already contains the necessary elements to enable the judge to make a decision, or when it relates to a subject unrelated to the dispute, or when the administration had the authority to make the challenged decision. Was this article helpful to you? Note that you can follow La Presse de la Manche in the My News section. With one click, after registration, you will find all the news of your favorite cities and brands.