Cassation File Number 266395
Under Articles 192 and 194 of the Criminal Code, reconciliation with the victim or the payment of money is not a mandatory requirement for the suspension of a prison sentence. A court may decide to suspend a sentence based on its evaluation of the offender’s potential for behavioral improvement and the overall social benefit of such a suspension.
Cassation File Number 251759
This case provides a key interpretation of Article 541(b) of the Criminal Code regarding crimes committed under provocation or extreme emotional distress. A person is eligible for a reduced sentence under this article only when it is proven that the victim’s actions would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control, that the perpetrator actually lost self-control due to those actions, and that the crime was committed immediately without any time to cool off. In this specific case, the court found that since the respondent went home after an attempted murder by the deceased, retrieved a grandfather’s gun, and waited for the victim in their residential area, there was ample time for reflection. Therefore, the act was not committed in the heat of passion, and the lower court’s decision was reversed to find the respondent guilty under Article 539(1)(a) instead.
Cassation File Number 249911
This case involves the concept of a good-faith purchaser of unregistered immovable property. Based on Civil Code Articles 1723, 1727, 2877, and 2888, a contract for the sale of immovable property is invalid and cannot be invoked against third parties unless it is made before a legally authorized body and registered. Furthermore, under Articles 2882-2884 and 997, if a person without a legal right to the property enters into a contract, a buyer who exercises due diligence is protected, and the true owner must seek remedy from the seller. In this case, since the house and the sales contracts were not registered in any party’s name, the lower court’s ruling that the buyer was not a good-faith purchaser due to a lack of due diligence was deemed a fundamental error of law.
Cassation File Number 226709
Dated October 2, 2016 E.C., this decision establishes that in construction contracts, the decision of a consulting engineer who certifies and approves a payment is binding according to the contract. One party cannot unilaterally overturn such a decision using its own internal committee. The lower court committed a legal error by remanding the case for further investigation based on the defendant’s unverified claims of defects and internal committee opinions.
Cassation File Number 232091
Dated October 8, 2016 E.C., this ruling clarifies that if a lease term ends and the tenant vacates the premises, they cannot be forced to pay rent for subsequent months even if they failed to restore the property to its original condition or failed to obtain a written clearance. If the tenant has indeed vacated, the landlord is only entitled to claim compensation for actual damages or the costs of necessary renovations, rather than ongoing rent.
Cassation File Number 235233
Dated October 26, 2016 E.C., this case interprets Article 35(2) of the Criminal Code regarding crimes committed in a group, such as a riot or affray. The prosecution’s only burden is to prove that the defendant was present as part of the group at the time and place the crime occurred. The burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that they did not participate in the criminal act. In this instance, while the appellate court did not properly examine the prosecution’s burden, it correctly assessed evidence proving the respondent did not participate, so the decision was upheld.
Cassation File Number 236797
Dated October 5, 2016 E.C., this decision covers two principles. First, a conflict of interest exists when an agent enters into a sales contract with their own spouse on behalf of the principal, which is sufficient grounds to void the contract. Second, regarding the effects of invalidation under Civil Code Article 1817(1), while parties should generally be returned to their original positions, if undoing the work performed—such as a completed G+2 building—presents excessive obstacles or difficulty, the work shall remain. Thus, while the contract was voidable for conflict of interest, the construction was allowed to stand.
Cassation File Number 237132
Dated October 7, 2016 E.C., this case deals with compensation for construction on another person’s land. Under Civil Code Article 1180(2), a person who builds on land without objection from the owner is entitled to compensation equal to one-fourth of the value of the building. The court found that even though the applicant only requested 1,100,000 ETB in their initial claim, the court should award the actual professionally assessed value of 1,690,164.25 ETB, as limiting the award to the requested amount ignored the fundamental nature of the legal right.
Cassation File Number 169500
Dated June 26, 2011 E.C., this ruling reinforces the evidentiary value of authenticated documents. Under Proclamation No. 922/2008, a sales contract registered by the Documents Authentication and Registration Agency is entitled to full faith and credit in all courts. Such a contract should not be invalidated based solely on a party’s claim that it was signed fraudulently or deceitfully. The lower court’s decision to void the contract based on such claims was reversed.
Cassation File Number 180248
Dated September 26, 2013 E.C., this decision addresses the jurisdiction of regional advocates’ disciplinary councils. The authority of a regional council applies only to lawyers licensed within that region. If a lawyer does not hold a federal license, they cannot be charged under Federal Advocates’ Ethics Regulation No. 57/92. The power to investigate disciplinary charges lies with the body that issued the license, which in this case was the regional disciplinary council, regardless of where the specific service was provided.