Legislation in question: Third part of Article 333 of the Civil Procedure Code

Legal issue: The constitutionality of consideration of an appellate application regarding the litigation expenses in the absence of the parties to the dispute and without notifying them.

Ratio decidendi: The rule in question does not contradict the Constitution. The federal legislator does have discretion regarding the possibility to provide for consideration of certain types of civil cases by the second instance court without hearings, and this implies consideration of the question before the court mostly on the basis of written evidence submitted by the parties. Likewise, in the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, the oral consideration is not a necessary form of an adversarial procedure (particularly in superior instances where procedures in writing can be more expedient), given that it does not involve those issues of law or fact which cannot be adequately resolved solely on the basis of the file of the case and written explanations of the parties.

The purpose of the contested regulation is to create conditions which would simplify and expedite the consideration by the court of those questions that due to their nature and the degree of complexity do not require the participation of the parties and their representatives in court hearings. Thus, the regulation in question aims at increasing the efficiency of justice by way of realization in the most rational way of the citizens’ right to judicial protection and of the right to court consideration within a reasonable time.

The court of appellation instance must hold hearings only if a party submits new evidence, which was not submitted by it in the first instance court due to some valid reason.