Constitutional Court

KI113/20, Applicant: IF Skadeforsikring, from Norway, constitutional review of Judgment E. Rev. No. 62/2020 of the Supreme Court, of 6 April 2020

KI113/20 Judgment of 28 April 2021, published on 25. May 2021

Keywords: individual referral, civil dispute, right to a fair trial, admissible referral for consideration, no constitutional violations found

The Applicant alleges that Judgment E. Rev. No. 62/2020 violated Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6.1 [Right to a fair trial] of the ECHR. With regard to the allegation of violation of these concrete provisions, the Applicant states that the challenged Judgment of 6 April 2020 is again characterized by a lack of adequate reasoning, because the Supreme Court did not provide sufficient and adequate reasoning regarding the modification to Judgment Ae. No. 191/2017 of the Court of Appeals of 31 October 2017, regarding the penalty interest, thus violating the principle of prohibiting arbitrariness in decision-making. In addition, the Applicant alleges that the non-application of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court regarding the lack of reasoning constitutes a serious violation of Article 31 of the Constitution. In support of this allegation, the Applicant refers to cases KI55/09, KI135/14, KI97/16 and KI138/15 where the Court found a violation of Article 31 of the Constitution, due to lack of reasoning of the court decision.

In this case, the Court considered that all the remarks given by the Court in its Judgment of 27 February 2019 (case KI87/18), regarding the reasoning of item 2 (two) of the challenged Judgment, on what legal basis or law the Supreme Court based the modification of the Judgment of the Court of Appeals regarding the interest rate (penalty interest), have already been consumed because the challenged Judgment contains a logical reasoning and explains exactly why in the Applicant’s case a rate of 12% may not be applied, noting that this interest rate applies only when claims for compensation are filed by injured persons, to which the obligation was not paid in accordance with the deadlines established in Article 26 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Third Party Liability Insurance. In addition, the Court notes that the allegation of inconsistency in decision-making has been consumed through the issuance of a legal opinion by the Supreme Court. Thus, the causes which have led to legal uncertainty due to the non-uniform application of case law on the same factual and legal issues have been eliminated.

In sum, with regard to the allegation of a violation of the right to a reasoned and reasonable court decision, the Court concluded that the Supreme Court: (i) provided the legal basis and clearly explained why in the Applicant’s case the interest rate of 12%; does not apply (ii) the challenged Judgment of the Supreme Court contains a logical connection between the legal basis, the reasoning and the conclusions drawn; (iii) as a logical consequence between the legal basis, the reasoning and the conclusions it has resulted that challenged Judgment E. Rev. 62/2020 of the Supreme Court meets the requirement of a reasoned and reasonable court decision. Furthermore, the latter is in line with the Legal Opinion of the Supreme Court of 2 December 2020. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Applicant, on constitutional basis, does not sufficiently support the allegation that in its case there has been a violation of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution and Article 6.1 (Right to a fair trial) of the ECHR, for insufficiency of the court reasoning.

Therefore, the Court concludes that, in the circumstances of the present case, there has been no violation of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 (1) (Right to a fair trial) of the ECHR.