Extraordinary review of judgments in civil law jurisdictions

Abstract

The article is focused on the current problem of distinguishing the means of ordinary and extraordinary review of court decisions, in view of the universally recognized value of the finality of a judgment and the unacceptability of groundless interference with res judicata.
 Based on the examples of some civil law countries the article substantiates the most common grounds for intervention into a final judgment which are considered sufficient, as well as introduces common traits which allow grouping those grounds. The article argues that, in general terms, the most common grounds for an extraordinary review are procedural violations that significantly limited the party in exercising the right to be heard; violations in the evidentiary issues caused by illegal actions of other participants in the proceedings, in particular due to the submission of forged evidence; procedural errors related to the composition of the court.
 The article distinguishes the means of extraordinary review, which might interfere with res judicata, and those that do not, but are aimed at the revision of the courts' interpretation of the law to ensure its development. At the same time, the article pays attention to the fact that in cases where the review may intervene into res judicata, errors in matters of law (e.g. incorrect application of substantive law) are excluded from the list of grounds for extraordinary review.
 The article pays attention to the problem of extraordinary reviews being initiated by actors other than parties to the case. The author refers to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and argues that an extraordinary review, which does not lead to interference with res judicata, can be initiated by such actors who pursue public interests in the development of law in order to achieve unity in its interpretation. With respect to cases where the review interferes with res judicata, procedural laws in many European countries is evolving towards eliminating these remedies as they are infringing the right to a fair trial.