This article examines how German engineering reports should be prepared and used in Iraqi construction disputes so that technical findings support contractual causation. A report may show that an installation is defective and still leave the claim unproven, because the legal question is whether the opposing party breached an obligation and caused the loss claimed.
The framework includes the Iraqi Civil Code No. 40 of 1951, which regulates construction contracts (muqawala), contractors’ and architects’ liability, including ten-year liability for structural defects, and compensation; the Evidence Law No. 107 of 1979, which governs expert evidence; the Civil Procedure Law No. 83 of 1969, which also contains Iraq’s domestic arbitration provisions; Law No. 14 of 2021 on Iraq’s accession to the New York Convention; and, for public works, the Instructions for the Execution of Government Contracts No. 2 of 2014 together with the General Conditions for Contracts of Civil Engineering Works.
Starting with the obligation in dispute
The construction contract, specifications, approved drawings and variations should be read before the expert’s brief is fixed. The Civil Code sets the general standards for construction obligations, while the contract documents define the actual scope. A departure from preferred engineering practice is not necessarily a breach of the contractual standard.
Who designed, supplied, installed and approved the disputed work should be identified, without assuming that one party’s approval releases another. Under the Civil Code, a consultant’s approval does not, as a rule, relieve a contractor of liability for defects. For public projects, alleged variations should be checked against the authorised procedures, since an informal site instruction may not constitute a valid change order.
A reliable chain from observation to conclusion
The report should explain what was inspected, what data was available and which assumptions were not verified. Original photographs, test outputs and instrument data should be preserved with dates and authors. Where results depend on operating conditions, those conditions should be recorded.
An evidentially useful report separates observed facts from information supplied by project staff, original defects from later operational damage, design errors from installation or material failures, and confirmed conclusions from hypotheses that need more testing. It also distinguishes necessary remedial work from improvements beyond the original obligation.
Joint inspections should be offered where practicable. If urgent remedial work is required, the reasons should be documented and samples retained. Destructive testing without adequate records can make later verification impossible, even when the original concern was justified.
From technical causation to the claimed loss
Proving a defect does not prove that it caused the entire delay or every lost revenue item. A chronology should link the defect to affected activities, mitigation attempts and the actual interruption. Other events, such as unavailable utilities or late employer approvals, may have contributed and should be analysed rather than ignored, since Iraqi courts can reduce compensation where the claimant’s own conduct contributed to the loss.
Quantification should follow the legal basis for recovery. Repair invoices, replacement costs and delay records must reconcile with the sums claimed, and double counting avoided where a replacement upgrades the asset. Agreed compensation, liability caps and mandatory structural liability require legal assessment under Iraqi law; an expert should not decide their enforceability through a technical opinion.
Court-appointed experts and party reports
Iraqi courts commonly appoint one or more experts and give the parties an opportunity to comment on the expert’s findings. A privately commissioned report is not binding on the court, but a well-structured one can shape the questions put to the court’s expert and support objections to an inadequate report. Timing matters: the party report should be ready before the court sets the expert’s terms of reference.
Preparing material for the chosen forum
Court proceedings and arbitration use different routes for expert evidence. Applicable deadlines and procedural requirements should be confirmed, and accurate Arabic translations prepared without losing technical definitions or qualifications.
If arbitration is proposed, there must be a valid written agreement signed by persons with authority. For public entities, specific approvals may be required. Since Iraq joined the New York Convention, foreign awards have a clearer enforcement route, but enforcement still depends on Iraqi procedural requirements and the reservations Iraq made on accession. The presence of a foreign expert or contractor does not, by itself, create arbitral jurisdiction.
Translation and presentation of technical evidence
Proceedings before Iraqi courts are conducted in Arabic, and documents in other languages generally need certified translation. Technical reports written in German or English lose force if key terms are translated inconsistently or if qualifications such as “likely” and “confirmed” are blurred. Parties should prepare a glossary of technical terms, use qualified translators with engineering experience, and have the expert review the Arabic version before it is filed. Presenting summaries, chronologies and annotated photographs alongside the full report also helps judges and court-appointed experts follow the technical reasoning.
Where the expert must attend a hearing or a site inspection, travel and immigration arrangements should be planned in advance so that availability does not delay the proceedings.
Conclusion & how Etihad Law Firm can help
Engineering evidence is most persuasive when it is built around the legal elements of the claim from the start. As Iraq construction arbitration lawyers for German companies, Etihad Law Firm works with German technical teams to frame expert instructions, test the causal chain, and present claims and defences before Iraqi courts and arbitral tribunals, keeping clear the line between expert findings and the legal conclusions the forum must reach.