How impartial could this expert have been to say

[mahbubamim077]

How, then, can we entrust the impartial and disinterested study and clarification of the basic part of the case to someone who has already prejudged it? This temerity is so great that MATTIROLO understands that a simple verbal manifestation is enough to impede it (“Trattato”, vol. 1, 5th ed., number 1,065, page 952 note 4):

“In Italy the prevailing doctrine is that, in order to be able to recuse a judge, he must have given his opinion in writing on the question and for the question that is the subject of the case… We cannot entirely accept this teaching. It is true that if the judge has previously expressed his opinion on the abstract question , by judging another case, expressing bulk sms colombia his opinion as a writer or teacher, there will not be, in such a case, sufficient reason to recuse him; but if it was up to him to express his opinion on a fact relating to the case , it does not seem that the only criterion for knowing whether or not to recuse one should consist in the circumstance of having expressed the opinion in writing or verbally. A purely verbal opinion can be more precise, more detailed than an opinion given in writing; and, therefore, engage, more than the latter, the self-esteem of the one who gives it.”

9. Let us move on to the second question, as follows:

“Decree-Law No. 2,627 of 1940 establishes that the statute of limitations is three years, counting from the publication of the minutes or resolution, for actions to annul the resolutions of assemblies that are tainted by error, deceit, fraud or simulation, as well as civil liability actions against directors, inspectors or liquidators for negligent or willful acts, or for violating the law or the bylaws (Articles 158 and 157 and sole paragraph, respectively, 1st part). However, the 2nd part of these provisions states: “However, when the act or fact constitutes a crime, the statute of limitations for the civil action shall be the same as for the criminal action.”