Disallowing the re-litigation of closed cases, the principle of “res judicata” is one of the cornerstones of legal systems worldwide. But what if the national constitutional court interprets the principle such a broad manner, based on which the ruling of an administrative court in the question of “work accident” precludes the establishment of civil liability in other court proceedings? In its recent judgement the Court of Justice of the European Union („CJEU”) examined the “res judicata” principle under the lens of the right to an effective judicial remedy.
ILF’s Hungarian member, Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners summarizes this issue in the article.
- Facts
After the death of an employee in Romania because of electrocution at work to two types of proceedings were commenced. First, the regional labour inspectorate started administrative proceeding against SC Energotehnica SRL, the employer of the victim.
Second, the public prosecutor started criminal proceedings against another employee of the employer responsible for safety and work organisation for failure to comply with the safety measures required by law and for manslaughter.
The labour inspectorate established in the administrative procedure that the accident did not constitute an “accident at work”.
In the criminal proceedings, the legal successors of the victim brought an action for damages.
According to Romanian law, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, the res judicata effect of the decision of the administrative court, binds the criminal court in relation with the classification of the event as work accident. In addition, judges face disciplinary proceedings in case they fail to follow the decisions of the Constitutional Court.
In the light of the above, in the case at hand the first instance criminal did not proceed to try the case in the merits by hearing the parties. Instead, relying on the res judicata effect of the administrative decision, the first instance criminal court acquitted the employee of the criminal proceedings and dismissed the civil action brought by the deceased employee’s legal successors.
Acting on appeal lodged by the victim’s successors, the second instance criminal court had doubts that above impossibility of deciding on criminal or civil liability independently from an earlier administrative decision is compatible with EU law, given that fact especially that the parties in the two proceedings were not the same.
In view of the above, the second instance court stayed the proceedings and turned to the CJEU in the framework of preliminary ruling procedure.
- The decision of the CJEU
According to the CJEU, EU law requires employers to ensure the safety and health of employees in all aspects of their work, but the procedures for establishing the employer’s liability in the event of non-compliance with these requirements are governed by the domestic legal systems of the Member States.[i]
In addition, the CJEU pointed out that in accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, the principle of res judicata is a matter for the national legal order but must be consistent with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
At the same time, the CJEU highlighted that Member States cannot make the exercise of the rights conferred by EU law, in particular the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“Charter”), impracticable or excessively difficult by means of national legislation.
The CJEU has stressed that, in particular, when the Member States lay down procedural rules governing appeals intended to guarantee the protection of the safety and health of employees at work, they must ensure that the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, is respected, which constitutes an affirmation of the principle of effective judicial protection.
This right is made up of various elements, including the right to be heard.
In the present case, the right to be heard of the victim’s successors would be infringed if it were impossible for them to take a position on the condition necessary to establish liability in criminal proceedings (such as whether the accident constituted an “accident at work”) before the court hearing the case had finally ruled on that condition.
The CJEU has stressed that in the present case it is for the national court to examine whether the successors of the deceased employee, who were private parties in the proceedings before the criminal court, were entitled to be heard before the administrative court, in particular as regards the classification of the event at issue in the main case as an „accident at work”.
The CJEU also established that the exposure of national judges to disciplinary proceedings in case they intend to unfollow the case law of their national constitutional court which they deem to be contrary to EU legislation, is running counter the primacy of EU law.
In the light of the above, the CJEU held that EU law precludes the legislation of a Member State under which a decision of one court binds the other court in such a way that the parties are unable to exercise their right to be heard.
In this article we analysed the judgement C‑792/22 of the CJEU.
Written by Dr. Richard Schmidt and dr. Agnes Bartus
SMARTLEGAL is a team of agile business & litigation lawyers in Budapest, Hungary, helping international corporate clients and individual entrepreneurs doing business in Hungary. For more information please visit our website at smartlegal.hu
[i] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work – 89 / 391 /EEC