“Iura novit curia” means “the court knows the law” and is a principle applied in civil law proceedings. The judge decides based on their knowledge of the law, not arguments made by the parties. In criminal law, lawyers argue the legal merits of the case, and the judge decides based on their observations.
Iura novit curia is a legal principle most commonly applied in civil law proceedings. A Latin phrase, iura novit curia, specifically means that “the court understands or knows the law.” As such, the plaintiff and defendant in civil proceedings where this principle applies present only the facts of the case and do not seek to argue or prove the law that applies to the case. The judge, in agreement with the iura novit curia, will listen to the facts and the briefs of the parties in the case and will pronounce on the basis of his knowledge of the applicable laws. This practice is in line with the idea that the purpose of a civil proceeding is to ascertain the relevant facts, to investigate and ask questions, and then to determine which law applies to the case.
Illustrative examples of the principle of iura novit curia are television tribunals, where civil parties abandon their court cases and appear before the television judge. The litigants take turns to state the facts in support of their arguments. None of the litigants cite case law or argue for the legal merits of their cases. After the judge has heard enough to make a decision, he makes a judgment on the case, unhindered by any limitations posed by the arguments of the litigants.
In theory, iura novit curia allows a court to make decisions according to the law even when one of the litigants has not raised an issue justifying the judge’s decision. For example, if a plaintiff sues a defendant over a breach of contract involving one aspect of the contract but fails to sue over another matter which has also been breached, the judge, if he has knowledge of both violations, it can base its decision on both violations. Most jurisdictions, however, limit their judgments to the claims advanced and remedies sought by the plaintiffs. For example, if a plaintiff sues a defendant for $300,000 US dollars (USD), the judge will limit the award he orders to $300,000 USD even though he may personally believe the plaintiff deserves more.
In criminal law, attorneys for each side provide the facts and also argue the legal merits of the case. The judge decides solely on the basis of the lawyer’s observations. For example, if the prosecutor fails to present evidence in court, the judge cannot use that evidence, even if he knows about it, to guide his decision on the case. Also, if the prosecutor charges the defendant with a misdemeanor in order to enter a plea bargain, the judge does not render the sentence appropriate for a felony. In such cases, iura novit curia gives way to the principle of audiatur et altera pars, the privilege of one party to be heard.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
