Decision No. 15 of 6 November 2018 on Constitutional Case No. 10/2018
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request submitted by a three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation. The subject matter of the case concerns the constitutionality of the provision of Article 280, paragraph 2, third limb of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), in the part reading: “…as well as in cases of manifest erroneousness.” The request maintains that the contested part of the provision is in conflict with Article 117, paragraph 1, Article 122, paragraph 1, Article 119, paragraph 1, and Article 8 of the Constitution. The main arguments of the applicants are that the prerequisite of “manifest erroneousness” of the decision is not defined by the legislator and introduces a “vague,” “indeterminate,” and “blanketly formulated” criterion for admissibility of cassation appeal, the content of which “…cannot be clarified through interpretative means in a manner that would establish a universal rule of conduct for the Supreme Court of Cassation in the exercise of its activity of selecting cassation appeals.”
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
By the express regulation of “manifest erroneousness” as a prerequisite for the selection of cassation appeals, the legislature has provided an additional possibility for the appellant to facilitate access to cassation review. The manifest erroneousness of the appellate decision/ruling is a condition for its admissibility to cassation appeal, without this being contingent upon the appellant formulating a legal question in accordance with the requirements of any of the hypotheses provided for in Article 280, paragraph 1 CPC. Within the scope of the new prerequisite of “manifest erroneousness” under Article 280, paragraph 2 of the CPC, the legislature has included all defects of the judgment that determine its incorrectness. An appellate decision is erroneous where it is affected by a defect that may fall within one of the three grounds for cassation appeal set out in Article 281, item 3 of the CPC - namely “violation of substantive law, serious violation of procedural rules, or lack of reasoning.”
The argument that the prerequisite of “manifest erroneousness” is unclear and, in particular, that it is indeterminate cannot be accepted. For legal doctrine and case-law, the ground of “ erroneousness ” of a decision/ruling has a clear and established content. By adding the qualifier “manifest” to the noun “ erroneousness,” the legislature has created a new legal concept which is indeed not statutorily defined. However, this does not mean that the prerequisite of “manifest erroneousness” has an indeterminable content. It is a blanketly formulated legal concept contained in a relatively determinate legal norm, the filling of which with concrete content is legally possible through the admissible methods of interpretation.
The blanket legal concept of “manifest erroneousness” may also, and should, be filled with concrete legal content through interpretative means, by which the law-applier may “reveal the precise meaning of the legislative intent embedded in the legal norm.” The prerequisite of “manifest erroneousness” cannot be qualified as indeterminable, since it is subject to interpretative analysis. In the exercise of its function of ensuring supreme judicial supervision for the exact and uniform application of the laws by all courts, the Supreme Court of Cassation is called upon to elucidate the legal meaning of the statutory criterion of “manifest erroneousness” by applying the established methods of interpretation and ensuring a balance between the public interest in lawful, predictable, and fair adjudication and the private interest of the parties in the resolution of a specific legal dispute.
The arguments alleging unconstitutionality of the contested part of the provision cannot be accepted, namely that it is incompatible with the fundamental function of the judiciary to provide protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, legal entities, and the State (Article 117, paragraph 1 of the Constitution), that it is incompatible with the right of citizens, legal entities, and the State to judicial protection at all stages of the proceedings (Article 122, paragraph 1 of the Constitution), and with the constitutional competence of the Supreme Court of Cassation to administer justice (Article 119, paragraph 1 of the Constitution).
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (the competence to rule on requests for a declaration of unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court rejects the request submitted by a three-member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Civil Division, Third Panel, for a declaration of unconstitutionality of the provision of Article 280, paragraph 2, third limb of the Civil Procedure Code, in the part reading: “…as well as in cases of manifest erroneousness.”
The decision was adopted with four dissenting opinions.