Court decisions are acts of justice and protection of human rights, which, once they have entered into force, must be complied with by all persons, institutions, organizations and public authorities. However, in order to maximize the protection of personal rights and minimize possible errors in court procedural decisions, the legislation regulating court proceedings provides for a number of forms of verification of the legality and reasonableness of court procedural decisions. In applying the renewal of process, as an exceptional stage of court proceedings, it is important to ensure the protection of legal stability, legal certainty, the protection of the rights and fundamental freedoms of persons acquired by final judgments, and the stability of the substantive legal relations established. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the Convention, emphasizes one of the essential elements of the principle of the rule of law: the principle of legal certainty, which implies respect for the principle of res judicata (the court's having finally settled the matter, i.e. the prohibition of an identical action). This principle requires that, once the courts have finally settled a dispute, their decision must not be called into question, thus ensuring the stability of relations. The grounds for reopening proceedings as an exceptional stage must therefore be applied informally and in accordance with the principle of legal certainty, so that reopening of proceedings is possible only for the correction of fundamental errors in important and compelling circumstances. The article presents and discusses on the institute of reopening of proceedings in civil and administrative court's proceedings from a comparative perspective, the main procedural peculiarities of this type of issues in different jurisdiction courts, and draws certain conclusions on the main topics of the renewal of process in both civil and administrative cases. A comparison of the procedural laws governing civil and administrative proceedings and the case-law developing them shows that the essential provisions of the institute of reopening of proceedings make this stage of the proceedings exceptional and optional. The definiteness and clarity of the legal regulation guarantee that this stage of the proceedings complies with the provisions of the Convention on the guarantee of the right to a fair trial.
Read full abstract