Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 3461/2010 AI generated

Property restitution and eviction claim: cassation appeal perempted, leaving appellate dismissal in force

Case Number Decizia nr. 3461/2010
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice affirmed the lower appellate court’s dismissal of the claimant's action by ordering the peremption of the cassation appeal, leaving the appellate decision of March 31, 2004, which rejected the annulment of the administrative measure and the request for property restitution, as the final, unenforceable outcome. The dispute arose from the claimant's lawsuit against the defendant, seeking the annulment of a 2001 administrative decision regarding a real property right, the reinstatement of the title, and the eviction of the occupant under Law No. 10/2001, following an initial trial victory on annulment and restitution that was reversed on appeal. The court’s ruling was based on Articles 248(1) and 252 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the cassation appeal had been suspended for over three years due to procedural delays and remained in abeyance until the statutory deadline for peremption expired, thereby extinguishing the court's jurisdiction to hear the merits.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 248 alin. (1) C. proc. civ, art. 252 C. proc. civ; Property restitution and eviction claim: cassation appeal perempted, leaving appellate dismissal in force: The dispute arose from the claimant's lawsuit against the defendant, seeking the annulment of a 2001 administrative decision regarding a real property right, the reinstatement of the title, and the eviction of the occupant under Law No. 10/2001, following an initial trial victory on annulment and restitution that was reversed on appeal. The court’s ruling was based on Articles 248(1) and 252 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the cassation appeal had been suspended for over three years due to procedural delays and remained in abeyance until the statutory deadline for peremption expired, thereby extinguishing the court's jurisdiction to hear the merits.

Keywords

AI generated
restitution of property eviction order procedural deadline action for annulment Civil Procedure Code right to property

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 248 alin. (1) C. proc. civ
This provision establishes the conditions for peremption of the cassation appeal, which is the main ground for the court's decision to perempt the appeal.
art. 252 C. proc. civ
This procedural rule authorizes the court to formally pronounce the peremption of the appeal once the conditions are met.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3269/2010
Peremption of cassation appeal against premature property restitution claim under Law 10/2001.
Decizia nr. 576/2014
Peremption of cassation appeal and rejection of reinstatement after suspension in state land restitution dispute
Decizia nr. 4365/2010
Peremption of cassation appeal due to procedural inactivity in property restoration and compensation claim
Decizia nr. 4363/2010
Peremption of cassation appeal following administrative restitution of property
Decizia nr. 4011/2010
Peremption of cassation appeals in property restitution case

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 248 alin. (1) C. proc. civ.

This provision establishes the conditions for peremption of the cassation appeal, which is the main ground for the court's decision to perempt the appeal.

art. 252 C. proc. civ.

This procedural rule authorizes the court to formally pronounce the peremption of the appeal once the conditions are met.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Asupra cauzei de față, constată următoarele:

La 5 noiembrie 2001, reclamantul H.C. a chemat în judecată pe pârâta K.A. L., solicitând, conform prevederilor Legii nr. 10/2001, anularea Deciziei nr. 76 din 9 octombrie 2001, obligarea părții adverse la restituirea în natură a imobilului situat în București, sector 3 și evacuarea acesteia.

Tribunalul București, secția a IV-a civilă, prin sentința nr. 717 din 13 mai 2002, a admis contestația, a dispus anularea dispoziției și a obligat pe pârâtă la restituirea în natură a imobilului dar a respins capătul de cerere privitor la evacuare.

Curtea de Apel București, secția a IV-a civilă, prin Decizia nr. 27 din 27 noiembrie 2002, a admis apelul declarat de R.A.AP.P.S. (succesoarea pârâtei R.A. L.) și a anulat sentința, iar în rejudecare, prin Decizia nr. 531 din 31 martie 2004, a respins contestația, ca nefondată.

Reclamantul a declarat recurs, a cărui judecată a fost suspendată la 5 octombrie 2006, conform art. 244 alin. (1) C proc. civ., cauza rămânând în nelucrare până la 21 ianuarie 2010, când a fost repusă pe rciț din oficiu, în vederea perimării.

Față de cele expuse, Înalta Curte reține că în speță sunt îndeplinite condițiile prevăzute de art. 248 alin. (1) C. proc. civ., astfel că, potrivit art. 252 C. proc. civ., se impune constatarea perimării prezentului recurs.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Constată perimat recursul declarat de contestatorul H.C. împotriva Deciziei nr. 531 din 31 martie 2004 a Cuiții de Apel București, secția a IV-a civilă.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi 3 iunie 2010.