Judicial review in Themiclesia

Judicial review in Themiclesia comprises the principles and procedures for resolving disputes between government authorities and private interests. This remedy is only available for a personal interest, whether liberty of person, real or personal property, or another privilege or legal right, damaged by an unlawful but official act of a civil or military officer. Judicial review permits plaintiffs to recover losses but does not penalize the convicted party at the same time.

History

The principle of judicial review, as a separate purview, developed relatively recently in Themiclesia. Prior to the erection of the Court of Requests in 1280, the only recourse against a misbehaving official was a suit at the royal court, which was costly and unreliable if the official had been a favourite. The Court of Requests (賣廷, lok-lêng) heard cases involving the lawful seizure of private property for official purposes and granted compensation if it was not already granted by the seizing magistrate, or not thereby granted to a reasonable amount. Subsequently, it also heard merchants' complaints if the government has not made payment for its purchases, wherein delivery always preceded payment, or not the agreed amount. At the same time, the Exchequer Court (內廷) heard revenue cases, if barons complained that magistrates had reaped from their lands without permission.

The distinction between the two tribunals seems to be that the Court of Requests only offered monetary compensations for assets seized by magistrates, while the Exchequer could only return unjustly collected revenues, whether in kind or money, as it was the place where public revenues were tallied and sealed. The Court of Requests was equally the place where the defence of prerogatives was carried out. If a person entitled to privileges, such as a piece of land free from taxation or a privilege from arrest, found them not recognized by other authorities, the Court could order the authorities to give proper regard for them. However, these courts did not have jurisdiction over the royal estate, which covered about one-tenth of Themiclesia and could have supported up to a million individuals.

During the Themiclesian Republic, private individuals acquired rights to recover properties damaged by magistrates but not actually seized. The courts of Request and Exchequer were only competent to provide compensation if the articles came into government hands. Ordinary magistrates hitherto tried complaints of damaged property, though as they would be proceeding against themselves, redress was seldom forthcoming. A new court was set up in 1477 to exercise this function. The 1477 decision is considered a milestone in Themiclesian jurisprudence as it implicitly recognized private property to be secure against magisterial action without valid reason, including mere damage but not seizure. However, historians also advise caution about the efficacy of these courts, which only sat when cases were pending; these courts imposed tremendous costs on plaintiffs, "to drive away frivolous suits."

The development of private property laws in general seems to have been interrupted by the chaos during the civil war between the Republic and its challengers, and then the peasant rebellions of 1524 to 1530. With at least a third of the baronage succumbing to revolts that spread from region to region, the "administration of justice" became untenable for short-lived rulers that did not enjoy the recognition of local aristocracies. In 1534, a new Court of Cassations was erected to deal with land issues by simply cancelling their missing owners' rights, if it could be proven that no attempt to collect rents had been made for three years.