By order of 29.8.2025, I CSK 2533/24, Legalis, SN rejected the cassation action in paragraph 1 of the contested order and refused to accept the cassation complaint to be examined to the remainder. The reason for SN’s refusal to accept the complaint was due to the fact that the cassation action is not of course justified and that the applicant treats it not as an exceptional remedy, but as an instrument to challenge the dissatisfied 3rd instance.
Actual and legal situation
Before the Court of First Instance, the composition of the assets of the erstwhile spouses, then the division of the common assets, as well as the payment of subsidies and the establishment of a safety by the establishment of a compulsory mortgage of the erstwhile spouse to the erstwhile spouse, was established. The appeal only somewhat reduced the amount of the aid and the remainder of the decision of the Court of First Instance remained unchanged. As a result, the applicant brought an action before the SN pursuant to Article 3989 § 1 point 4 of the KPC. This provision states that the SN accepts a cassation complaint to be examined if, inter alia, the cassation complaint is clearly justified.
The applicant considered the apparent justification for the cassation action in the event that, in the course of the appeal procedure, the Court of First Instance carried out additional evidence of the papers submitted to the appeal which challenged the facts of the Court of First Instance.
Position of the ultimate Court
The ultimate Court, at the self-control stage, decided not to comply with the complaint which it rejected as regards point 1, and refused to accept the complaint to be examined in the rest. In his observations in the explanatory memorandum of the SN, he stressed that the examination of the cassation action must be justified on grounds of peculiar importance beyond the individual interest of the complainant, since the origin of the complaint should be of public interest. It was besides argued that the cassation action cannot be treated as a 3rd instance and that the function of the ultimate Court is not to correct errors in the explanation and application of the law in any individual case. Furthermore, the party’s own disagreement with the judgement is not an apparent justification for the action. In his deliberations, the NS besides pointed out that, by manifestly justified by the cassation action within the meaning of Article 3989 Paragraph 1(4) of the NPC must be understood as meaning that the action is clearly justified, indicating the gross and serious deficiencies of the contested judgment, which can be established without the request for more complex reasoning. On the another hand, the burden of the ruling on the part of the public is clearly and materially flawed. The ultimate Court besides stressed that the adoption of a cassation action for examination was not dependent on a manifest violation of a circumstantial substantive or procedural provision, and on the situation in which the infringement of a given provision resulted in an manifestly incorrect ruling. Moreover, in the assessment of the SN, the cassation complaint should be so constructed and edited that it is not essential to search its grounds or justify the elements of its creation.
Reasons for refusing to accept the complaint
The reason why the SN refused to accept a cassation complaint for examination was to treat the cassation complaint as an instrument allowing to challenge an unsatisfactory decision and the ultimate Court as a 3rd instance. In addition, the application itself was intended to competition the assessment of the evidence made by the Court of First Instance.
Comment
The ruling in question refers to the institution of the ‘prejudice’. Within its framework, pursuant to Article 3989 § 2 of the KPC — The Court of First Instance decides whether to accept or refuse to accept a lodged cassation action for examination. In Article 3989 § 1 of the NPC, the legislator mentioned the conditions which find the acceptance of the complaint to be examined, including, inter alia, the premise that the cassation complaint is clearly justified (Article 3989 § 1 point 4 of the KPC).
The following shall be considered to be essential conclusions of the reasons for the ruling:
- Whereas the examination of the cassation action must be justified on grounds of peculiar importance beyond the individual interest of the applicant, which is of a public interest;
- the parties themselves disagree with the ruling does not find the apparent justification of the action;
- The complaint is, of course, justified erstwhile it indicates the gross and serious deficiencies of the contested judgment, which can be established without having to carry out more complex reasoning.
However, in the remainder of the comment, I will focus only on the peculiar importance of the complaint in the public interest. First, however, it should be noted that erstwhile submitting a complaint, the complainant must show what is the ‘obvious merits’ of the complaint, and give the applicable arguments (cf. the order of the SN of 9.6.2008, II UK 37/08, Legalis). This is so the first step to be taken into account in the construction of the cassation complaint, and it is further essential to link this apparent legitimacy of the complaint and the arguments cited with the demonstration of the public-law nature of the cassation complaint. This is due to the powerfully established case law of the NS with the view that the primary nonsubjective of the cassation action is to defend the public interest by providing a uniform explanation in the improvement of jurisdiction and law (cf. the order of the NS of 18.1.2007, II UZ 47/06, Legalis, or the order of the NS of 4.2.2000, II CZ 178/99, Legalis). However, the above cannot find the simplification of the private interest of the complainant. It must, of course, be accepted that the filing of a cassation complaint should mention to the protection of the public interest, but it should not be forgotten that it is the protection of the private interest of the complainant that determines the decision to lodge a cassation complaint.
The cassation action, although in a public capacity, remains a procedural measurement initiated by the complainant in defence of his individual rights. The private interest and public interest do not stay in the relation of superiority-subordination but in the relation of equivalence. Public interest does not be in vacuum and is linked to the protection of individual interests. In addition, the complainant refers, of course, to a breach of a public interest judgment, but to its own situation. It should so be considered as perfectly understandable that the complainant will mention to his example to the majority of the cassation action. It is equally crucial that the complaint shows a breach of both private and public interest. Although the grounds of the Court of First Instance must be taken into account in its entirety, the primacy to defend the public interest from the protection of the private interest of the complainant must be regarded as unfounded. In particular, if a cassation complaint is brought against the background of a dispute between persons who have been married.
Order of 29.8.2025, I CSK 2533/24, Legalis
