The concept of cassation is used in the field of law with reference to the act and the result of annulling or marrying (in the sense of repealing or abolishing). A court of cassation is called the one that deals with possible infractions committed in rulings or shortcomings in the processes related to the evidence or the facts judged.
Also called the court of cassation, this court is in charge of resolving appeals, which seek the annulment of a sentence. The claim to annul the court ruling is due to an improper application or interpretation of the law, or because the court decision derives from a process that has not respected the legal requirements.
In other words: when a party to a dispute considers that a court has passed a judgment that is incorrect from the legal point of view, it can file an appeal. This extraordinary appeal is studied by the court of cassation, which is a court of higher hierarchy capable of nullifying the sentence in question. The court of cassation can correct an error by annulling a procedure or a judgment, but it has no power to judge.
The courts of cassation, in short, are responsible for ensuring that the law is applied correctly. They also unify the way laws are interpreted, establishing jurisprudence.
Beyond these general characteristics, the scope of cassation appeals vary according to procedural law, which takes different forms according to each country. That is why its regulation is different taking into account the particularities of the various legislations.
General characteristics of the appeal
It is important to note that procedural law varies greatly from one country to another, which is why it is very difficult to define the concept of cassation in a way that can be applied in all cases. However, there are certain general characteristics, which are set out below.
The cassation appeal is extraordinary, that is, the law admits it exceptionally and against certain judicial decisions. The causes of the appeal are previously determined, and can be divided into two groups, which are procedural violations (all errors of form) and violations of law (substantive errors).
The cassation must adhere to certain limits, such as the reasons that may arise and the amount, especially in civil law cases. According to the doctrine and jurisprudence, it is possible to find two variants, which arise around the extension of the powers to review the facts that occurred in a given case:
* From a classical point of view, the appeal is not constitutive of instance. This means that the court can only rule on questions of law. It is the review that has the most limitations, and can be based only on an incorrect interpretation of the law, but not carry out a review of the facts of the trial;
* If it is circumscribed to the criminal sphere and interpreted more broadly, this remedy can not only review the factual issues, but also the facts themselves. If it does not do so, by the way, it is understood that it violates the guarantee of double instance, as recognized by various international human rights treaties.
The German theory of exhaustion of review capabilities is used to support this position, as it determines that a court of cassation has the obligation to review as much as is within its power, with the sole exception of issues that are directly related with the principle of immediacy (the contact in hearing of the procedural subjects with the judge, as well as the reception of the evidence in a given trial).
