Res judicata

As a res judicata (from Latin res judicata " decisive thing " ) is referred to in the legalese a final judgment delivered by another court or a legally recognized as a thing ( marriage, divorce, purchase, inheritance).

Application

Res judicata is of legal certainty. Once it has been judicially determined, once a thing is an ongoing debate (called a regress ad infinitum ) are avoided. Thus, if a party after a trial inserts no appeal, they can not impose any change at a later date. Because by the court verdict is this thing to become res judicata, so all claims shall be paid and forfeited. There is also the possibility that a court decision has been flawed. This is the effectiveness of the principle of "res judicata " does not answer.

The res judicata thus protects the parties to a dispute before further actions or improvements, it establishes legal force. At the same time it serves as a workload for courts who reject a request for renegotiation of res judicata generally inadmissible.

Example

Excerpt from the world stage process:

The Federal Court then rejected a complaint against the decision of the Appeal Court. It held, in a decision of 3 December 1992:

" Erroneous application of the law on its own is not a reason for reopening by the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the exception of the case of the involvement of a dishonest judge may, based on incorrect interpretation of the law " even the wrong decision " in the retrial, only in case of falsehood of the erroneous decision underlying facts are eliminated. (...) "

The Federal Court thus the judgment, the Supreme Court is not " confirmed " in the strict sense, but merely decided that the questions referred to " new facts and evidence " under § 359 Code of Criminal Procedure were not sufficient to reopen the procedure. Whether the earlier judgment had been revised in a resumed process remains open.

European and International Legal Aspects

In international law, res judicata also has significance. However there is under the European Convention on Human Rights the opportunity to attack a court of last instance also decision, unless the allegation is justified, violates human rights of the applicants has to get this out of the convention. Therefore, a state can not assert that violate human rights decision, the authority of res judicata in international law.

The Court of Justice of the European Union ( ECJ) in Luxembourg has these thoughts in judgment C-224/2001 ( Kobler - decision) taken Gerhard Kobler v. Republic of Austria and assumed by analogy that adhere to the member states of the Union for violations of European Union law, even if this last by national court judgments instance happens and regardless of that the judgment is final. According to the Court, the principle of res judicata is not jeopardized. However, this is questionable when it was decided in a (national) union last instant judgment, for example, that certain monetary claims are not entitled to the applicant but then may assert under Union law by way of an action for damages them. De facto, res judicata thus canceled. However, calls the ECJ ruled that the breach of European Union law must be " manifest et grave", ie a so-called serious breach must be present. This is inter alia be given when the court of last instance has its original obligation under Article 234, paragraph 3 of the Treaty violated. In the above case is a serious breach of European Union law by the interpretation of the legislation in question by the Austrian court was not given, because it was only ex post to EU law. Whether these developments of Union law triggers a flood of complaints remains to be seen. The only certainty is that the questioning of res judicata raises practical problems. Thus, it is unclear which national court would have to edit the actions for damages, and if this is not also leads to a regress ad infinitum.

Less of a problem it turns out, however, if the Commission initiates proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty ( See Commission / Italy, 2003), since res judicata thus undergoes no restriction. In this case, it is not for the Commission to redress, but rather an objective complaint of infringement of Union law.

Other examples

If a democratic election takes place and the preliminary official results have been found, there is this statement by a deadline until which a challenge can be made. Once the deadline has expired without objection, the result is final, it becomes res judicata. Even if irregularities could be proved after the deadline, those appointed by the official statement Deputies are legal in office. The res judicata protects the system from instability by a discussion is excluded from a certain point.

• Legal language