In procedural practice, the question frequently arises: Is the civilian court examining the fresh case bound by factual findings and the assessment of evidence made in another proceedings concerning the same event?
This problem is peculiarly crucial erstwhile there is already a final judgement given in a case linked to the 1 presently being examined.
This article explains:
- to what degree a final judgement binds a court (binding power of judgement under Article 365 kpc),
- how to realize the binding force of the facts and the limits of its impact on another proceedings,
- where the line between by prior decision and the independency of the court in the assessment of evidence under Article 233(1) of the Code.
The article besides answers applicable questionswhether the court must repeat the assessment of the evidencewhen an earlier judgement excludes reexamination of facts and erstwhile the court can make its own findings despite an existing ruling.
Is the court bound by findings and assessment of evidence from another case?
In principle, the court examining the fresh case is not bound by factual findings or by the assessment of evidence in another proceedings, even if both cases relate to the same event.
The ultimate Court in its judgement of 4 March 2009, No. IV CSK 441/08 (LEX No 603182) stressed that the court had an work Alone:
- assess the reliability and power of the evidence,
- make their own comprehensive factual arrangements,
- formulate their own conclusions, even if they are different from those previously adopted.
Position expressed in another case based on the same event, It can't be ignored., but is only a mention point. The court should take them into account, but retains the full right to draw different conclusions.
As explained by the ultimate Court in the justification of the judgement of 13 January 2000, II CKN 655/98, non-publ., Article 365(1) of the Code regulates the issue the substantive validity of the judgment in a affirmative sense. It is fundamentally that the binding content of the final decision is limited primarily to the parties to the trial and the court which issued it, and subsequently includes another courts and public authorities and public administrations. However, this binding of another courts is limited to the content of the decision contained in the operative part a does not cover his motives.
Why is the court not bound by an earlier assessment of evidence?
The ultimate Court raised 2 basic arguments in this respect:
Judicial independency and free assessment of evidence (Article 233 §1 of the General Court)
The right of the court to independently measure the reliability of the evidence is 1 of the foundations of judicial independence. If the court had been bound by the assessment of evidence in another proceeding, there would have been a real regulation on that independence.
Therefore, as highlighted in the judgement Supreme Court of 23 May 2002, IV CKN 1073/00 (LEX No 55501), any exceptions to the rule of court independency in the assessment of evidence must be interpreted strictly.
Different evidence in various cases
In proceedings concerning the same event, the parties may submit different or incomplete evidence. This is due to the rule of the adversariality of the civilian process, as it is the parties who form the evidence at their disposal.
This was noted, inter alia, in the ultimate Court judgement of 30 January 2013, V CSK 84/12 (LEX No 1311858), and in the judgments of 13 January 2000, II CKN 655/98 (LEX No 51062), 28 June 2007, IV CSK 110/07 (LEX No 488981) and 22 June 2010, IV CSK 359/09 (OSNC 2011, No 2, item 16).
In practice, this means that two courts, examining cases based on the same event, may come to different factual findings and different assessments of evidence, and this is not against the law.
The force binding a final judgment, what is it?
It's different. binding the court on the substance of the final judgement in the physical sense, or alleged binding power (the seriousness of the judgement positive).
It follows from the caselaw that the degree to which the court is bound by the substance of the final judgement means, in particular,:
- the prohibition of making findings contrary to the substance already judicated,
- the inadmissibility of the conduct of the evidence proceedings to the degree that the substance has already been settled.
Binding force occurs erstwhile another case is heard and the decision of an earlier judgement constitutes Preliminary question for fresh proceedings.
The binding power of the judgement shall relate to:
- To the fact existence of a final judgment, which means that the court cannot presume that the judgement has no or that it has no effect until it has been moved in an appropriate manner.
- To the legal value of the decision contained in the judgment, i.e. the legal position of the earlier judgment.
In subsequent proceedings where the same issue arises (e.g. the existence of a circumstantial law, the validity of a legal act), cannot be re-examined. The Court of First Instance must take the view that the substance is as established in an earlier final judgment.
The operative part of the judgement and the justification – what does the court tie together?
The court’s binding refers primarily to the operative part of the judgment, but besides includes the reasons for the ruling to the degree that they are essential to supplement the decision.
This means that:
court examining the fresh case must respect what has been decided in the operative part an earlier judgment,
may besides be bound by part of the justification if the scope and content of the decision cannot be determined without mention to the recitals.
The position of the judicature in this respect is established and unambiguous, as confirmed by many ultimate Court judgments (e.g. of 8 March 2010, II PK 249/09, 23 November 2010, I UK 162/10, 20 January 2011, I UK 239/10, 4 February 2011, III CSK 161/10).
Positive effect of the substantive validity of the judgment
The affirmative effect of material validity is that:
- decision in a final judgement shape the legal state, as the operative part shows,
- court proceeding the dispute in another case must take this legal position as a starting point,
- the same question cannot be re-examined and resolved.
In another words: final judgement of the ‘close’ dispute on a given issue, and subsequent courts are obliged to presume that the law or legal relation in question exists (or does not exist) as it follows from an earlier ruling.
Practical importance for civilian parties
For parties to civilian proceedings, the rules described have respective key consequences:
- In a fresh case involving the same incidental the ‘automatic’ transfer of facts and the assessment of evidence cannot be expected from the erstwhile proceedings, as the court will measure the evidence itself.
- Simultaneously legal issues which have already been settled must not be called into question, the court is bound by an earlier judgement in respect of its binding power.
- The procedural strategy should take into account both:
the anticipation of building a fresh line of evidence based on another means of evidence,
and restrictions resulting from final decisions, which binds the court on any issues.
Most common questions (FAQ):
Can a court in a fresh case justice the same evidence as a court in a erstwhile case?
Yeah. The court has the right to own independent assessment of evidence. There may be different factual findings from the court in the erstwhile proceedings, even as regards the same event, provided that it does not prejudice the binding force of the earlier judgment.
How is the binding force of the judgement different from that of another case?
The binding power refers to the ruling contained in the operative part of the earlier judgement and, to any extent, to the essential recitals. The facts and the assessment of evidence in another case do not bind a fresh courtWho has to justice them himself.
Is it possible to re-examine an issue that has already been duly judged?
Nope. If the substance afraid was the subject of a final decision, in the following proceedings, it cannot be re-examined or decided differently. The court is bound by an earlier ruling in this respect.
These principles show that binding the court with a final judgement and independency in the assessment of evidence are 2 co-existing pillars of the civilian process. On the 1 hand, they defend the stableness of legal trade and the seriousness of the substance judged, on the another hand, they warrant judicial independency and individual assessment of each dispute, taking into account the peculiar evidence presented in the case.
