|
|
Home | Media | News | Exclusion of the ground for review of a judgment based on the decision of a non-judicial body – constitutional
01.03
2016 Exclusion of the ground for review of a judgment based on the decision of a non-judicial body – constitutionalOn 1 March 2016 the Constitutional Court of Moldova delivered a judgment on the exception of unconstitutionality of certain provisions of paragraph 118 of Article I of the Law no. 155 of 5 July 2012 on amending and supplementing the Code of Civil Procedure of Moldova (Complaint no. 46g/2015 - in Romanian). Circumstances of the case The case originated in a complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court of Moldova on 10 November 2015 by the Supreme Court, on the exception of unconstitutionality of paragraph 118 Article I of Law no. 155 of 5 July 2012 in respect of the exclusion of the phrase „or the judgment or the decision of another authority" of Article 449.e of the Code of Civil Procedure. The exception was raised by Felix Guţu - party in the pending case no. 2rh-199/15 before the Supreme Court, who applied for review of a decision of the Supreme Court. Following the amendment made to Article 449.e of the Code of Civil Procedure, the review of a judicial act may be requested only in case there was quashed or modified the judgment, sentence or the decision of a court of law, which served as a ground for issuing the judgment or decision which has been requested to be reviewed. Quashing or modifying the decision of another authority is not a ground for review of a judgment. The author of the exception claimed that by amending Article 449.e of the Code of Civil Procedure were violated Articles 1.3, 16, 20, 21, 54 and 116 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court ruled on the complaint in the following composition: Mr Alexandru TĂNASE, president, Mr Aurel BĂIEŞU, Mr Igor DOLEA, Mr Tudor PANȚÎRU, Mr Victor POPA, judges Conclusions of the Court Hearing arguments of the parties and examining the casefiles, the Court held that the right of access to justice may involve limitations, including procedural ones, as long as they are reasonable and proportionate to the aim pursued. The Court also noted that one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty. This principle requires that no party to a proceeding shall be entitled to request the review of a final judgment solely for the purposes of obtaining a rehearing and a new determination of the case. The jurisdiction of the courts reviewing judgments should be exercised in order to correct judicial errors and miscarriages of justice, but not to conduct a new examination. The Court ascertained that prior to the amendments made to Law no. 155 of 5 July 2012, the wording of Article 449.e of the Civil Procedure Code allowed for a judicial review of a judgment in case there was quashed or modified the act of another authority, which served as ground for issuing the judgment whose review was requested. The Court found that the excluded text - „a judgment or decision of another body was quashed or modified" - did not meet the criteria of clarity and predictability of the law. Thus, by its wording, the text could not circumscribe which acts and whose authorities' acts shall determine the review of judicial decisions requested before the courts of law. The Court noted that the act of a non-judicial authority, that is not definitive, cannot determine the modification of a final and definitive judgment, which in most cases has been executed at the stage of requesting a review, this might involving a violation of legal certainty. In light of all the above, the Court held that the exclusion of the phrase „or the judgment or the decision of another authority" of Article 449.e of the Code of Civil Procedure is not contrary to Article 20 of the Constitution. Judgment of the Court Stemming from the above arguments, the Constitutional Court: - rejected the exception of unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court. - declared constitutional paragraph 118 Article I of Law no. 155 of 5 July 2012 on amending and supplementing the Code of Civil Procedure of Moldova, in respect of the exclusion of the phrase „or the judgment or the decision of another authority" of Article 449.e. The Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Moldova is final, cannot be appealed, shall enter into force on the date of passing, and shall be published in the Official Journal of Moldova. This press-release is also available in the original Romanian version.
|