Up-1369/06

The interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 116 of the Civil Procedure Act with reference to the first paragraph of Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act (regarding whether in the case at issue proceedings were concluded with legal finality by an order of the Higher Court on the dismissal of the appeal against a motion for a restoration to the previous condition [restitutio in integrum]), is an application of procedural law which does not entail an interference with human rights and is thus as such reserved for the regular judiciary. It cannot be alleged that an order that is soundly reasoned is manifestly erroneous or that it violates Article 22 of the Constitution. In view of the fact that a revision against an order is allowed only if two conditions are fulfilled in conjunction with the fact that, regarding the first condition, it established that Article 22 of the Constitution was not violated by the Supreme Court’s decision, the Constitutional Court did not consider whether Article 22 of the Constitution was violated with reference to the second condition.