1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal against the first instance court’s ruling on correcting a clerical error in the ruling on the appointment of a preparatory hearing.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GCSC) concluded that a ruling on correcting a clerical error in a court ruling is subject to appeal only if the ruling in which the clerical error is corrected is subject to appeal separately from the court’s decision. The GCSC noted that a clerical error that is subject to correction is a mechanical error that may lead to a misunderstanding of the court decision. The court emphasized that the correction of a clerical error should not change the substance of the court decision. Since the ruling on the appointment of a court hearing is not subject to appeal separately from the court’s decision, the ruling on correcting a clerical error in it is also not subject to separate appeal. The GCSC emphasized that the definition in the procedural law of cases when a court decision is subject to appeal is not a restriction on access to court.
3. The court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Note:** In this resolution, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from previous conclusions regarding the application of legal norms set forth in the resolutions of the Supreme Court of February 22, 2022, in case No. 918/753/21, of March 1, 2023, in case No. 910/11980/21, and of March 29, 2023, in case No. 910/13847/21.
