Res judicata
In legal terminology, res judicata (from Latin res iudicata , `` decided matter '' ) refers to a final judgment by another court or a legally recognized matter (marriage, divorce, purchase, inheritance).
As res iudicata pro veritate accipitur , the motto is translated: The judgment counts as truth .
application
Res Judicata serves for legal security. As soon as a final decision has been made about a matter, a continuous dispute (a so-called regressus ad infinitum) should be avoided. Thus, if a party to a court case no appeal inserts, it can not impose change at a later date. Because through the court judgment this matter has become a res judicata , with it all claims are settled and forfeited. There is also the possibility that a court decision was incorrect. However, this does not contradict the effectiveness of the res judicata principle .
The res judicata thus protects the parties to a legal dispute against further lawsuits or amendments, it creates legal force . At the same time, it serves to make work easier for courts that generally reject an application for renegotiation of a res judicata as inadmissible.
example
The Federal Court of Justice rejected a complaint against the decision of the Berlin Chamber Court in the Weltbühne trial and justified this in a decision of December 3, 1992 as follows:
"[...] Incorrect application of the law by itself is not a reason for reopening under the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the exception of the case of the involvement of a dishonest judge, the `` no matter how wrong decision '' based on a wrong legal opinion can only be eliminated in the retrial if the facts on which the incorrect decision is based are incorrect. [...] "
The Federal Court of Justice has thus not "confirmed" the judgment of the Reichsgericht in the actual sense, but merely decided that the "new facts and evidence" presented in accordance with Section 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not sufficient to restart the proceedings. It remains to be seen whether the earlier judgment would have been revised in a reopened trial.
European and international law aspects
Res Judicata is equally important in international law. However, under the European Convention on Human Rights there is the possibility of attacking a final court decision, provided that the accusation is justified that it violates the applicant's human rights under the Convention. Therefore, a state cannot assert in international law that the decision violating human rights has the authority of the Res Judicata.
The Court of Justice of the European Union ( ECJ ) in Luxembourg raised this idea in judgment C-224/2001 ( Köbler decision ) Gerhard Köbler v. Republic of Austria took up and assumed by analogy that the member states of the Union are liable for violations of Union law, even if this happens through national court judgments of last instance and regardless of whether the judgment is final. In the opinion of the Court of Justice, the principle of the Res Judicata was not jeopardized. However, this is questionable if it was decided in a (national) last-instance judgment, for example, that certain monetary claims are not justified, but the applicant can then assert them under Union law by way of a claim for damages. Res Judicata is de facto canceled. However, the ECJ demands that the breach of Union law must be manifest et grave , i.e. H. there must be a so-called qualified violation. Inter alia, this is the case if the court of last instance has violated its submission obligation under Article 234 (3) of the EC Treaty. In the above-mentioned case, there was no qualified violation of EU law through the interpretation of the regulation in question by the Austrian court, as it was only in violation of EU law ex post. It remains to be seen whether this development in Union law will trigger a flood of lawsuits. What is certain is that the questioning of Res Judicata raises practical problems. It is unclear which national court would have to deal with the claims for damages and whether this would not also lead to regressus ad infinitum.
On the other hand, it turns out to be less problematic if the Commission initiates proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty (cf. Commission / Italy, 2003), since Res Judicata is not restricted by this. In this case, the Commission is not concerned with redress, but with an objective complaint about the violation of Union law.
Other examples
If a democratic election takes place and the provisional official final result has been determined, there is a deadline through this determination, until the expiry of which a challenge can be made. If this period has expired without objection , the result becomes final and becomes a res judicata . Even if irregularities could be proven after the deadline, the delegates appointed by the official declaration are legally in office. The res judicata protects the system from instability by excluding a discussion from a certain point.
