Res Judicata Principle in the Case Law of International and Lithuanian Courts

Abstract

Res judicata is a general principle of law recognized in all legal systems and based on legal certainty. However, recognition of universal character of this legal principle does not resolve the problem of finality of a judgment rendered on national level when this judgment contradicts the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or EU law. A similar problem arises in situations where final national judicial decisions contradict posterior judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In public international law, the authority of res judicata of a judgment of national court does not prevent international courts from holding that this judgment contradicts international obligations of a State and thus entails international liability. The case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU shows that grounds for reopening of national proceedings is a matter of domestic law. There is also no general rule which would require reopening of national proceedings in order to put judicial decisions in line with the judgments of the ECtHR and the CJEU. Nevertheless, the res judicata principle is not absolute and cannot serve as an excuse for non-respect of human rights. Higher courts’ powers to quash or alter binding and enforceable judicial decisions should be exercised for the purpose of correcting violation of human rights. In EU law, the principles of sincere cooperation, equivalence and effectiveness may require to review a final decision of national court incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights or, in general, with the directly applicable EU rules. In conformity with supremacy of EU law, the authority of res judicata of national judicial decisions must be reviewed on the basis of principle of legality and rule of law. This should prevail over traditional recourse to legal certainty of a final judgment.