Constitutionality Review

Contested Provision

The contested provision stipulates that in relation to monetary limits for appeal and cassation, the amount applicable on the date of judgment shall be taken as the basis.

Ground for the Request for Annulment

It was maintained in brief that during the period between the bringing of the action and the adjudication of the dispute by the trial court and subsequently by the regional court of appeal, the monetary limits for appeal and cassation may change each year in line with the revaluation rate. Accordingly, a dispute that was subject to cassation review on the date the action was brought could fall below the cassation limit by the time the regional court of appeal rendered its decision, which was incompatible with the right of access to a court, the right to request the review of a judgment, and the principle of the lawful judge. Moreover, considering that the length of proceedings may vary among courts, it was argued that two actions brought on the same date could lead to different outcomes, whereby one case concluded earlier would remain subject to cassation review, while the other case concluded later would fall outside the scope of such review, which allegedly violated the principle of equality. Therefore, the contested provision was claimed to be unconstitutional.

The Court’s Assessment

In accordance with the contested provision, where the value or amount of the subject matter of the dispute falls below the monetary limits applicable on the date of the judgment, it is not possible to recourse to appellate remedies to challenge the decision of the court of first instance or the regional court of appeal.

It is evident that individuals may bring an action, a counterclaim or a request for amendment depending on the value of the property or claim in dispute. Given that the legislature updates the monetary limits for appellate remedies annually throughout the course of the proceedings, it is necessary to ensure that the value of the subject matter of the dispute, which may lose its economic significance due to inflation, is likewise protected against the adverse effects of inflation.

Where, according to the monetary limits in force on the date on which the legal relationship was established, the event or legal situation giving rise to the dispute occurred, or the action was brought, a decision would be subject to appeal or cassation, the contested provision may eliminate the possibility of having recourse to such remedies on the basis of the monetary amounts applicable on the date of the judgment particularly in cases involving lengthy proceedings.

While the monetary value (finality limit) is updated for the purposes of appellate remedies under the impugned provision, the value of the property or claim in dispute is not correspondingly updated. As a result, the entire burden arising from inflation is placed on the parties to the proceedings. In this regard, it has been observed that the balance between the burden imposed on the parties due to their inability to have recourse to appellate remedies and the public interest in ensuring that proceedings are concluded at the lowest possible cost and within the shortest possible time has been upset to the detriment of the parties. Accordingly, the Court has found that the restriction imposed by the contested provision on the right to request review of a judgment, which is found to impose an excessive burden on individuals, is disproportionate.

Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.