Commentary on Ordinance No. 20013 of 2024: Revocation in Supreme Court Rulings

The recent Ordinance No. 20013 of July 19, 2024, issued by the Supreme Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the subject of revocation of rulings. This provision clarifies the necessary requirements for an error to be considered relevant under Article 395, No. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.). In this article, we will analyze the main points of the judgment and its implications for future appeals.

Requirements for Revocation of Rulings

The Court has established that a relevant error, under Article 395, No. 4, c.p.c., must meet specific requirements:

• It must consist of an erroneous perception of the facts of the case.
• It cannot concern interpretive and evaluative activity.
• It must possess characteristics of absolute evidence and immediate detectability.
• It must be essential and decisive for the ruling.
• It must only concern acts within the cassation proceedings.

In particular, the Court emphasized that the error must be so evident that it can only be found by comparing the contested judgment with the case files. This implies that the appellant cannot simply complain of an omission to consider grounds already presented, as occurred in the specific case, but must demonstrate a perceptual error of fact.

The Specificity of Factual Error

In general. Regarding the revocation of Supreme Court rulings, a relevant error under Article 395, No. 4, c.p.c.: a) consists of an erroneous perception of the facts of the case that led to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of a fact, the truth of which is incontestably excluded or ascertained from the case files (provided that the fact subject to the alleged error was not a matter of dispute between the parties); b) cannot concern interpretive and evaluative activity; c) must possess the characteristics of absolute evidence and immediate detectability based solely on a comparison between the contested judgment and the case files; d) must be essential and decisive; e) must only concern acts within the cassation proceedings and solely affect the Court's ruling. (In this case, the S.C. declared inadmissible the ground of appeal with which the appellant, far from highlighting a perceptual factual error, complained of an omission to consider the grounds set out in the introductory appeal, thus soliciting a renewed judgment on the dismissed grounds of the appeal for cassation).

In the case at hand, the Court declared inadmissible the ground of appeal filed by the appellant, who failed to highlight a perceptual factual error but merely indicated an omission to consider grounds already presented. This serves to reiterate that revocation cannot be used as an additional level of judgment but must strictly adhere to the aforementioned requirements.

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 20013 of 2024 represents an important confirmation of the strict interpretation that the Supreme Court of Cassation has adopted regarding the revocation of rulings. Lawyers and legal professionals must pay particular attention to these requirements when considering the possibility of an appeal for revocation, as failure to comply with the conditions established by the Court could result in the inadmissibility of the appeal itself. This not only highlights the importance of precision in legal proceedings but also the necessity of a thorough analysis of the case facts before undertaking any legal action.