Analysis of Supreme Court Judgments No. 883/2567 and No. 3670/2567

Abstract

          This article aims to study and analyze the principles of law according to the Civil and Commercial Code as appears in Supreme Court Judgment No. 883/2567 and principles of law according to the Civil Procedure Code as appears in Supreme Court Judgment No. 3670/2567.

          In a case where the defendant, while driving under the influence of alcohol, collided with another person's automobile, the owner of the damaged vehicle, as the insured, received compensation from the insurance company in accordance with the insured amount. Subsequently, the vehicle owner filed a petition under Section 44/1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking an order that the defendant pay compensation for the repair costs in the criminal case filed by the public prosecutor. The Court rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay compensation to the vehicle owner, and the defendant duly complied in full with the judgment. Thereafter, the insurance company sought to bring a civil action against the defendant, invoking its right of subrogation from the vehicle owner. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the defendant was liable to pay the insurance company in Supreme Court Judgment No. 883/2024, upon which the author offers observations in the note appended thereto.

          Is the existence of special circumstances required for the court to issue an order extending or shortening a prescribed period under Section 23 of the Civil Procedure Code? In a case where an application for extension of time relies upon the applicant's personal reasons, which do not constitute special circumstances, does the court nonetheless have general authority to order an extension of the prescribed period? The Supreme Court addressed the issues in Supreme Court Judgment No. 3670/2567, upon which the author offers observations in the note appended thereto.