The Recent Constitutional Court Decision on the Principle That Judicial Errors Cannot Be Imputed to Individuals

The Incident Giving Rise to the Application and the First Instance Court, the Regional Court of Appeal, and the Court of Cassation Decisions

In the case forming the basis of the Decision, the applicant argued that, due to a procedural error not attributable to his own fault, he had been unable to exercise his right to seek appellate remedies and that this situation constituted a violation of his right of access to a court, which is safeguarded under the right to a fair trial.

The applicant filed an action for debt before the First Instance Court. The court ruled that there was no ground to render a decision on the merits. Both parties lodged an appeal against this judgment. The applicant’s appeal petition was received and scanned by the court; however, it was mistakenly recorded in the NJIS as a petition for amendment. The Regional Court of Appeal, without examining the applicant’s appeal petition and relying solely on the opposing party’s request, dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the applicant’s appeal request was not examined by the Regional Court of Appeal.

Thereafter, the applicant sought to file a cassation against the appellate decision. However, the relevant chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that he had not lodged a proper appeal against the first instance judgment.

Constitutional Court Decision

The Constitutional Court examined the present case in terms of the right of access to a court, which is protected under the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. As emphasized in the Decision, the right of access to a court means the ability to bring a dispute before a judicial authority and to request that the dispute be resolved effectively. The act of applying for a legal remedy is also considered to fall within the scope of the right of access to a court.[2]

The Constitutional Court does not consider the requirement to comply with procedural rules when applying for legal remedies as an obstacle to the right of access to a court. However, it reviews the substance of such rules and requires that the conditions of clarity and foreseeability be met. The Constitutional Court also emphasizes that procedural rules governing applications to legal remedies must not be excessively formalistic. Such rules must not prevent or unduly hinder access to a court.

On the other hand, the Constitutional Court states that responsibility arising from errors and disruptions attributable to judicial authorities cannot be imposed on individuals seeking judicial protection.[3] Accordingly, the Constitutional Court holds that a person who has duly submitted a petition to the competent court in accordance with procedural requirements cannot be deprived of the opportunity to apply for a legal remedy due to errors stemming entirely from the internal functioning of judicial bodies; otherwise, this would constitute a violation of the right of access to a court.

Therefore, the fact that the applicant’s appeal petition, submitted against the First Instance Court decision, was mistakenly recorded in the NJIS as a petition for amendment, thereby preventing both the appeal and the cassation from being examined, cannot be attributed to the applicant. In the Decision, it is emphasized that the applicant submitted his legal-remedy petition to the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the legislation, and it is concluded that the applicant cannot be held responsible for an error of the First Instance Court that is not attributable to him.[4] The Constitutional Court, on these grounds, concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court was disproportionate and that, therefore, the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial had been violated. In addition, it held that conducting a retrial would be sufficient to remedy the violation in question and accordingly dismissed the claim for compensation.

Principles

The Constitutional Court sets forth various principles regarding applications to legal remedies and the procedural steps involved in the context of the right of access to a court as part of the right to a fair trial. These principles may be summarized as follows:

• The right to access a court encompasses not only the ability to bring an action before a first instance court but also the right to apply to legal remedies granted to the parties, such as objection, appeal, and cassation. Accordingly, the right to apply for legal remedies is considered part of the right of access to a court.
• If the legislator has provided various legal remedies, the safeguards afforded by the right to a fair trial must be fully applicable in relation to these remedies as well. In other words, such legal remedies must not merely exist in form; the individual’s effective access to them must be guaranteed.
• Procedural rules governing judicial applications do not, by themselves, restrict the right of access to a court. However, these rules must be clear and foreseeable. Uncertainty arising from statutory provisions or practical functioning concerning the initiation of actions or applications to legal remedies may undermine the right of access to a court.
• When applying procedural rules regarding the submission of petitions, a level of formalism that unnecessarily complicates or even renders impossible individuals’ access to judiciary must not be adopted.
• The consequences of delays, omissions, and errors arising from the internal functioning of judicial authorities cannot be imposed on individuals. Accepting the contrary would constitute a disproportionate interference with the right of access to a court.

Assessment of the Incident and Conclusion

Considering the principles applied to the present case, the Constitutional Court clearly established that errors arising from the internal functioning of judicial authorities must not produce adverse consequences for individuals seeking judicial protection. In the Decision, it was decisive that the applicant had clearly and properly submitted his appeal request, yet the misregistration of his petition—an error originating entirely from the judicial authorities—and not from any fault of the applicant prevented him from making use of a legal remedy. Indeed, the applicant’s appeal petition was mistakenly recorded in the NJIS as a petition for amendment by the First Instance Court, and because of this erroneous entry, the applicant’s opportunity to apply to a legal remedy was eliminated.

The Constitutional Court expressly stated that the effective exclusion of appellate review due to such an error is incompatible with the right of access to a court, which constitutes one of the fundamental components of the right to a fair trial. In the Decision, the failure to consider the applicant’s appeal request at all despite his compliance with procedural requirements because of a malfunction stemming from the courts’ internal functioning, is characterized as an interference exceeding the limits of the principle of proportionality and as violating both the right to a fair trial and, consequently, the right of access to a court. In line with this approach, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that the elimination of individuals’ opportunity to apply to legal remedies, which is safeguarded within the scope of the right of access to a court, due to errors occurring beyond their control, cannot be accepted.

In conclusion, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant’s inability to exercise his right to apply to a legal remedy due to the negligence of judicial authorities constituted a violation of his rights. To remedy the violation, it ordered that the file be remitted to the First Instance Court for reconsideration. In doing so, the Constitutional Court once again reaffirmed its established position that the consequences of errors arising from the internal functioning of judicial authorities cannot be imposed on individuals.