Super revision

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Super audit referred especially in the German jurisprudence a revision of the revision , that the reconsideration of a decision for errors of law by a higher court.

Germany

In Germany there is no superreview by the Federal Constitutional Court . The exercise of the right of grace is also not a super-revision, since acts of grace are not legal decisions.

When determining the factual jurisdiction of special courts, such as the constitutional courts vis-à-vis specialized courts, the super- revision is a decisive distinguishing feature ( Heck's formula ): If the petitioner has to re-examine a contested decision for procedural and legal errors after a revision, it is a matter of a inadmissible super revision. If it is necessary to check them against the special legal standard for the special dish, this is permissible.

Example: The constitutional courts review decisions of other courts only against the standard of specific constitutional law and not with regard to whether the courts have correctly applied the law (full review).

From a functional point of view, the activity of some federal courts is equivalent to a superreview, but with the proviso that it is gradually limited and only serves to standardize the case law:

  • if the Federal Court of Justice examines the decisions of the higher regional courts on revision and appeals because there is a deviation from other decisions on the same legal issue, or
  • if such a legal question is submitted to him for a preliminary ruling by a court of appeal ,
  • if one of the major senates of the Supreme Federal Courts decides on a legal issue that the judging bodies belonging to it have decided differently or want to deviate from one another,
  • if the joint senate of the highest federal courts reviews the divergent practice of the arbitration bodies of different specialized courts or a legal question is submitted to it for a preliminary ruling.
  • if the Federal Constitutional Court in the case of constitutional complaints based on the principle that an actually given restriction of fundamental rights is only legitimate if it has been made in the correct interpretation of the laws legitimizing it, the challenged decisions as a whole for correctness or freedom from arbitrariness (as a violation of the fundamental right to Equality).

In such cases, the same legal matter is applied, but there is no full audit, only the disputed legal question is decided and the application of the law is standardized.

In a procedure that has already been concluded, no new decision will be made between the parties. However, in the event of a change in a previously established legal practice, a party involved may, under certain circumstances, request a resumption .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BVerfG, judgment of the First Senate of January 15, 1958, Az. 1 BvR 400/51, BVerfGE 7, 198 Rn. 31 - Lüth .