The Plenum of the Constitutional Court has issued an anticipated position statement that deviates from previous legal interpretations found in judgments from 2011 and 2020, as well as the position upheld by Supreme Court case law.
This statement addresses a significant issue regarding the reimbursement of legal costs in cases related to the dissolution and settlement of co-ownership. Its purpose is to reconcile the prior inconsistent jurisprudence among various senates of the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court emphasizes the pivotal role of the Supreme Court in harmonizing the interpretation of sub-constitutional law within the realm of civil judicial proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that appeals concerning the costs of proceedings are generally inadmissible, primarily because they don't meet the criteria for reaching the Supreme Court due to their inherent nature.
The complexity of this matter stems from the far-reaching implications that cost decisions can have on the property rights of the parties involved, especially in cases involving immovable property, where substantial sums are often at stake.
Inconsistencies in rulings by lower courts have driven the Constitutional Court to establish a unifying stance aimed at providing a more equitable approach to cost allocation in cases of co-ownership dissolution and settlement.
The Constitutional Court's position advocates for a general principle wherein each party bears their own costs without the obligation to compensate the other party, except in instances where exceptional circumstances, supported by specific case details, justify a deviation from this rule. This decision is designed to align with the constitutional, substantive, and procedural nuances that are inherent in such cases, recognizing that co-ownership disputes typically lack clear "winners" or "losers."