Background

A claimant filed a case against two defendants requesting that the court dismiss a decision made by the Ministry of Health (first defendant) which deprived him from receiving a scholarship. During the consideration of the case, the claimant requested that the court order the first defendant to stop the implementation of a transfer decision.

The court held that it had no mandate to consider the case.

The claimant appealed and the appeal court rejected the case for being previously settled.

The claimant appealed by cassation.

Decision

Before the cassation court the claimant argued that the ruling had erred in the application of law and contradicted material documentary evidence as the court had rejected the case based on it having been previously settled, but his request in the current case had not been introduced to the court previously.

The court held that this argument was valid as the summary ruling has no legal power before the court as the court of summary proceedings does not settle the dispute completely.

The court therefore repealed the ruling.