Ensuring the effect of the res judicata principle in commercial court proceedings in conditions of open access to court decisions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35774/app2023.02.135Keywords:
commercial proceedings, well-known facts, judicial notice, finality of judgments, digitalization of judicial decision-makingAbstract
The author argues that open access to full texts of judgments of the courts of Ukraine, provided by the Unified state register of court decisions, dictates the need for re-evaluation of the established views on the effective application of the res judicata principle in the aspect of ensuring that courts do not allow re-examination of finally resolved disputes in new, but identical proceedings. The article aims to use as an example the commercial court proceedings in order to reveal the legal fundament for imposing the duty to establish the existence of a res judicata judgement issued in an earlier identical proceeding upon the court or an interested party, in particular in the conditions of digitization of the judicial decision-making. According to the conclusions of the article, the party to the proceedings remains an entity that bears the burden of negative consequences of failing to reveal the existence of a final judgement in an identical case. It is worth to emphasize, that the fact-finding court is obliged to react to a party's statement of the existence of a res judicata decision and cannot place the burden of proving the existence of that decision on the party, but instead has the duty to determine this issue by way of obtaining a copy of the respective judgement upon the respective party's statement. At the same time, the court has the right, but is not obliged, to establish sua sponte the existence of a final court decision in identical proceedings. The author comes to the conclusion that the ongoing digitization of domestic court proceedings should open the opportunity for courts to automatically detect final judgments in the Register in order to identify potentially identical cases and provide the respective court with sufficient data for prompt reaction to attempts to initiate new proceedings aimed at re-examination of already decided cases.
References
Akkoyunlu v. Turkey (2015). Application no. 7505/06. The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-157755 [in English].
Al Hamdani v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. (2012). Application no. 31098/10. The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-108994 [in English].
Bellin, J., Ferguson, A. G. (2014). Trial by Google: judicial notice in the information age. Northwestern University Law Review. 108, 4, 1137-1181 [in English].
Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland. (2021). Applications nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19. The European Court of Human Rights (First Section). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-213200 [in English].
Evidence: Judicial Notice of Its Own Records by Court (1913). California Law Review. 2, 1, 66-68. DOI: 10.2307/3474096 [in English]. https://doi.org/10.2307/3474096
Jabari v. Turkey. (2000). Application no. 40035/98. The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section). Judgment (Merits). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58900 [in English].
Myerson, D. (2015). Judicial Notice in the Internet Era. Illinois Bar Journal. 103, 5, 30. Retrieved from https://www.isba.org/ibj/2015/05/judicialnoticeinternetera [in English].
Osmanoğlu v. Turkey. (2008). Application no. 48804/99. The European Court of Human Rights (First Section). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-84667 [in English].
Reczkowicz v. Poland (2021). Application no. 43447/19. The European Court of Human Rights (First Section). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-211127 [in English].
The burden of proof. (2023). European Judicial Network. Last update: 20.02.2023. Retrieved from https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_taking_of_evidence-76-at-restore-en.do [in English].
Tyner, Ch. (2014). Rule of Evidence 201: Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts. NC Superior Court Judges’ Benchbook. Retrieved from https://benchbook.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Judicial%20Notice_0.pdf [in English].
United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (No. 3). (2018). Application no. 29496/16 The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section). Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-179869 [in English].
Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. (1988). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Judgment of July 29, 1988 (Merits). Retrieved from https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_ing.pdf [in English].
Bernazyuk, O. (2019). Yedyna sudova informatsiyno-telekomunikatsiyna systema: ponyattya ta struktura [Unified judicial information and telecommunication system: definition and structure]. Pidpryyemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo – Entrepreneurship, business and law, 6, 326-330 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.32849/2663-5313/2019.6.61
Hetmantsev, M. O. (2017). Yedyna sudova informatsiyno-telekomunikatsiyna systema: realnistʹ i vyklyky sohodennya [Unified judicial information and telecommunication system: reality and current challenges]. Pidpryyemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo – Entrepreneurship, business and law, 4, 179-183 [in Ukrainian].
Kibets, V. O. (2020). Yedynyy derzhavnyy reyestr sudovykh rishenʹ yak zasib dostupu hromadyan do sudovykh rishen [Unified state register of court decisions as a mean of access of public to court decisions]. Porivnyalno-analitychne pravo – Comparative and analytical law, 2, 122–124 [in Ukrainian].
Ostafiychuk, L. A. (2021). Vidkrytist sudovykh rishen vs prava lyudyny na tayemnytsyu personalnykh danykh [Open access to court decisions vs human rights regarding privacy of personal data]. Aktualni problemy sudovoho prava – Current problems of the judicial law. Kharkiv: Pravo, 53-56 [in Ukrainian].
Pilkov, K. M. (2022). Res judicata, ostatochnist i zakonna syla sudovoho rishennya: spivvidnoshennya ponyat [Res judicata, finality and legal effect of the judgment: interrelation between concepts]. Naukovyy visnyk Uzhhorodsʹkoho Natsionalʹnoho Universytetu – Scientific Bulletin of the Uzhhorod National University. Seriya Pravo - Law series, 71, 44-48. DOI: 10.24144/2307-3322.2022.71.6 [in Ukrainian].
Pilkov, K. M. (2019). Zabezpechennya diyi pryntsypu res judicata yak skladovoyi prava na spravedlyvyy sud: komponentnyy analiz sudovoho rishennya [Ensuring the effect of the res judicata principle as a component of the right to a fair trial: component analysis of court decisions]. Osoblyvosti pravovoho zabezpechennya interesiv derzhavy ta subʺyektiv pryvatnoho prava v umovakh systemnykh suspilʹnykh kryz - Peculiarities of legal protection of the interests of the state and subjects of private law in conditions of systemic social crises, 164–177 [in Ukrainian].
Pilkov, K. M. (2022). Pryntsyp res judicata yak skladova publichnoho poryadku [Res judicata principle as a component of public order]. Yurydychni nauky: problemy ta perspektyvy – Legal sciences: problems and prospects, 47-50 [in Ukrainian].
Pryvalikhina, A. I. (2020). Pravovi osnovy zaprovadzhennya informatyzatsiyi diyalnosti sudu [Legal basis for the introduction of informatization of judicial activities]. Naukovyy visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Ser.: Yurysprudentsiya ¬– Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanitarian University. Series: Jurisprudence, 47, 1, 153-157 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.32841/2307-1745.2020.47-1.32
Skrypnyk, D. O. (2022). Shchodo pryzupynennya zahalʹnoho dostupu do Yedynoho derzhavnoho reyestru sudovykh rishenʹ v umovakh voyennoho stanu [Concerning the suspension of public access to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions under martial law]. Yevropeyskyy vybir Ukrayiny, rozvytok nauky ta natsionalʹna bezpeka v realiyakh masshtabnoyi viysʹkovoyi ahresiyi ta hlobalʹnykh vyklykiv XXI stolittya – The European choice of Ukraine, the development of science and national security in the realities of full-scale military aggression and global challenges of the 21st century: materials of the International Scientific-Practice. Odesa: Vydavnychyy dim «Helvetyka», 2, 465-467 [in Ukrainian].
