| Abstract | Vladavina prava podrazumijeva i pravnu sigurnost, a sastavni dio pravne sigurnosti je i institut res judicata. On sprječava beskonačna preispitivanja pravomoćnih presuda, što je ključno za osiguranje sigurnosti građana u pravni poredak. Sud, u svojim presudama, dosljedno ističe važnost poštivanja pravomoćnih sudskih presuda kao temeljnog elementa koji pridonosi zaštiti ljudskih prava. Konkretno, Sud naglašava da svaka država ugovornica nužno mora osigurati zakonodavni okvir koji sprječava proizvoljno preispitivanje pravomoćnih presuda.
Primjena pravila res judicata, odnosno zabrana suđenja u stvari u kojoj je već presuđeno, doprinosi dosljednom tumačenju članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije koji jamči pravo na pošteno suđenje. Sva jamstva koje pruža ovaj članak, poput suđenja od strane neovisnog i nepristranog suda, pravično, javno i u razumnom roku, ne bi imala smisla kada takva odluka ne bi bila konačna i neopoziva. Dakle, Sud prožimajući institut res judicata kroz članak 6. stavak 1., ne samo da štiti pravo na pošteno suđenje, već i naglašava važnost dužnosti država članica da osiguraju da jednom donesene odluke budu poštovane, ali i provedene.
U predmetu Brumărescu protiv Rumunjske, Sud je po prvi puta naglasio važnost tumačenja članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije u svjetlu vladavine prava i pravne sigurnosti, a u predmetu Sovtransavto Holding protiv Ukrajine potvrdio taj standard, naglašavajući da će svaki zakonodavni okvir koji omogućava ponovljeno ukidanje konačnih presuda putem sustava prigovora biti nespojiv s pravnom sigurnošću. Presudom Ryabykh protiv Rusije Sud je utvrdio mogućnost odstupanja od pravila res judicata, ali samo ako je to nužno zbog bitnih i nesavladivih okolnosti. U predmetu Tregubenko protiv Ukrajine pojašnjen je standard prema kojem povredu Konvencije predstavlja ovlast za neograničeno preispitivanje pravomoćnih presuda bez obzira na to pripada li ovlast sudu ili državnim službenicima. Da neopravdano produljenje rokova za podnošenje redovnih pravnih lijekova može uzrokovati povredu instituta res judicata, Sud je utvrdio u predmetu Bezrukovy protiv Rusije. Isto tako, i vođenje dva sudska postupka koji se odnose na iste stranke, a po svojoj biti odnose se na isti predmet, bez obzira na to što zahtjev u tužbi nije isti, može stvoriti pravnu nesigurnost, a takav stav izražen je u presudi Brletić protiv Hrvatske. Predmetom Trapeznikov i drugi protiv Rusije dokazano je da proaktivno mijenjanje zakonodavstva prema uputama Suda može doprinijeti rješavanju nerazriješenih društveno-političkih prilika koje su uzrokovale prijašnje povrede. Promjenom zakonskih odredbi omogućeno je vremenski ograničeno preispitivanje pravomoćnih presuda, što prema mišljenju Suda, osigurava dovoljan stupanj pravne sigurnosti. Da članak 6. stavak 1. Konvencije treba tumačiti u svjetlu preambule Konvencije u skladu s vladavinom prava Sud stalno ponavlja. Tako i u novijoj sudskoj praksi, predmetu Vardanyan i Nanuchyan protiv Armenije. Konačno, presudom Magomedov i drugi protiv Rusije, Sud se još jednom osvrnuo na institut povrata u prijašnje stanje i odobrenja zakašnjele žalbe uzimajući kao relevantno pitanje hitnost djelovanja podnositelja takvih zahtjeva te opravdanosti samog zahtjeva. |
| Abstract (english) | The rule of law implies legal certainty, and an integral part of legal certainty is the principle of res judicata. It prevents endless reconsideration of final judgments, which is crucial for ensuring citizens' trust in the legal order. In its judgments, the Court consistently emphasizes the importance of respecting final court decisions as a fundamental element contributing to the protection of human rights. Specifically, the Court stresses that every contracting state must ensure a legislative framework that prevents arbitrary reconsideration of final judgments.
The application of the res judicata rule, or the prohibition of trying a case that has already been adjudicated, contributes to the consistent interpretation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. All the guarantees provided by this article, such as the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, fairness, public hearings, and a trial within a reasonable time, would be meaningless if such decisions were not final and irrevocable. Therefore, by infusing the principle of res judicata into Article 6, paragraph 1, the Court not only protects the right to a fair trial but also emphasizes the duty of member states to ensure that once decisions are made, they are respected and enforced.
In the case of Brumărescu v. Romania, the Court emphasized for the first time the importance of interpreting Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention in light of the rule of law and legal certainty, and in the case of Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, it reaffirmed this standard, stressing that any legislative framework that allows repeated annulment of final judgments through an objection system is incompatible with legal certainty. In the judgment Ryabykh v. Russia, the Court established the possibility of deviating from the res judicata rule, but only if necessary due to essential and insurmountable circumstances. In the case of Tregubenko v. Ukraine, the standard was clarified that the authority for unlimited review of final judgments, regardless of whether that authority lies with the court or state officials, constitutes a violation of the Convention. The Court ruled in Bezrukovy v. Russia that unjustifiably extending deadlines for filing regular legal remedies could lead to a violation of the res judicata principle. Similarly, conducting two legal proceedings involving the same parties and essentially the same matter, even if the claim in the lawsuit is not identical, may create legal uncertainty, as expressed in the judgment Brletić v. Croatia. The case of Trapeznikov and Others v. Russia demonstrated that proactive legislative changes in line with the Court's recommendations could contribute to resolving unresolved socio-political situations that caused previous violations. By amending legal provisions, time-limited reconsideration of final judgments was made possible, which, in the Court's opinion, ensures a sufficient level of legal certainty. The Court consistently reiterates that Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention must be interpreted in light of the Convention's preamble, in accordance with the rule of law, as seen in the more recent case Vardanyan and Nanuchyan v. Armenia. Finally, in the judgment Magomedov and Others v. Russia, the Court once again addressed the issue of the reinstatement of proceedings and the granting of belated appeals, considering the urgency of the applicant's actions and the justification for the request. |
