The Res Judicata Effect of Judicial Judgments as a Prerequisite for a Conflict of Decisions – An Analytical Study on the Degrees of Binding Force and Their Procedural Effects

This study addresses the res judicata effect of judicial rulings as a fundamental cornerstone in the occurrence of conflicting judgments that jeopardize stability and legal certainty, moving beyond the mere concept of jurisprudential divergence into a procedural dilemma that touches the core of the judicial function. Further, the study examines the legal nature of res judicata and its protective effects in preventing the relitigation of adjudicated disputes, while classifying its degrees according to the nature of the judgments; thus, it distinguishes between procedural and ex-parte orders, and summary judgments characterized by a temporary and conditional binding effect. The research concludes that a true conflict necessarily requires the issuance of concurrent judgments, each possessing enforceable legal authority, making it impossible to execute their effects simultaneously. This precludes the existence of a conflict between a judgment possessing res judicata and another subject to revocation or amendment. Finally, the study emphasizes that the current procedural mechanisms designed to limit conflicting judgments require substantive regulatory development to unify judicial precedents and safeguard the presumption of legal truth embodied in the judgment, thereby ensuring the stability of legal positions and achieving the objectives of justice.