Understanding Case Law: Role, Appeals, and Judicial Independence
Understanding Case Law and its Role in the Legal System
Case law plays a crucial role in complementing the legal system. It embodies the doctrine that law derives from the decisions of judges. The Constitutional Court (CC) refers to the Supreme Court (TS), which acts as the court of last resort. The Supreme Court’s decisions provide closure in the application of the law, though the CC makes no mention of the lower courts.
The CC has established superior courts of the Autonomous Communities (CCAA), and in certain cases, these courts serve as the final instance of appeal. Therefore, the doctrine of the Supreme Court ultimately prevails, as does the doctrine of the Supreme Court of each AC when there is no further recourse. Each chamber within the TS handles specific types of cases, and it is important to cite the chamber (civil, criminal, etc.) from which the legal precedent emanates, according to jurisdictional divisions. Each chamber functions as a court order.
The function of case law is exercised by judges who interpret and apply rules, thereby complementing the legal system. Meeting content standards is becoming increasingly difficult, making preferred interpretation necessary.
Appeals to the Supreme Court (TS) Since the 1980s
Since the 1980s, the following types of appeals can be presented to the TS:
- The appeal for error of law: This appeal is valid when laws are not properly applied, and judges should enforce them correctly.
- The appeal for violation of the law: This appeal argues that the law’s interpretation by the TS itself is being violated. It means appealing to the TS without having broken the law directly. The alleged infringement is based on an interpretation of the rule that contradicts the TS’s own interpretation. In other words, the rule is being interpreted in a way that it should not be. This raises the question: Is the TS creating law? The interpretation of the law by the TS becomes the law itself. For example, in cases of murder, what the TS says matters more than the literal wording of the standard. It is the interpretation by those who interpret the standard that prevails.
Example: Interpretation of Article 122.3 of the Spanish Constitution (CE): Performance: 21 members (20 + President), 4 elected by the Congress, 4 by the Senate, and 12 judges and magistrates drawn from the judicial staff, which are the courts.
This precept is deliberately complex, as the Court is meant to elect all members. The legislature initially intended for these 12 members to be elected by the judges as representatives of the Council, which was the initial system (8 politicians and 12 judges). Later, the Act was amended, removing the elections by the judges, and instead, they would be chosen by the Parliament (to avoid union elections…). This led to conflicts on the board and was challenged in the TS. The TS determined that both constitutional methods are valid, allowing the Parliament to continue appointing members of the council, interpreting the standard in this way.
To consider a case before the TS, the Supreme Court of the CCAA must have issued two or more resolutions in the same direction. A single, isolated statement is insufficient. The decisions must be reiterated within the same chamber of the TS and must establish the “ratio decidendi.” It is not enough that the decision resolves a point; it must be a core, consolidated decision, addressing the main points of the matter, not just collateral issues.
Judges apply the rules, applying a body of jurisprudence over the sentences and correctly interpreting the various provisions or regulations at all times.
Judicial Independence and Evolutionary Interpretation
The law must be compatible with the principle of judicial independence. Judges are independent in the performance of their duties and are not linked to any public authority. They are also not bound to maintain a consistency in their decisions; they may change judgments and are not bound by previous rulings. A court may change its approach to two identical cases.
Judges employ an evolutionary interpretation, adapting to the evolving social reality in the sense of the norm, thus complementing the law. The work of the Constitutional Court (TC) is particularly relevant because it judges rules, not people or cases. It assesses the values of a rule of law, and the interpretation of this rule will accompany all subsequent work. If the rule has been challenged, it must be accompanied by a statement from the TC. For example, the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia must be considered alongside the text and sentence of the TC as its complement interpretation of the standard. The function of the TS is similar to that of a legislator, but it interprets standards (it does not legislate negatively but positively, according to Kelsen).