Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 2869/2003 AI generated

Remittal ordered for appeal filed before 2003 procedural reform; jurisdiction rests with lower court.

Case Number Decizia nr. 2869/2003
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 (Administrative and Fiscal Division) ordered that the appeal (recurs) case be remitted to the Teleorman Tribunal, where the appeal was filed, so that it could then forward it to the competent court under the procedural rules in force before 28 August 2003; the appeal against a civil judgment of 4 August 2003 remains governed by the prior procedural law, and the submission to the Supreme Court was incorrect. The dispute concerns the proper appellate forum following the entry into force of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 58/2003, which, under Art. II(3) and Art. 725(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, preserves the appeal routes and deadlines of the law under which the challenged decision was pronounced for judgments issued before the new law's adoption. The court granted the referral only, without deciding the merits, and held that because the underlying judgment predated the ordinance, the case must proceed according to the earlier procedural provisions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 725 pct. 4 C. proc. civ, art. 302 C. proc. civ, Art. II alin. (3) din O.U.G. nr. 58/2003; Remittal ordered for appeal filed before 2003 procedural reform; jurisdiction rests with lower court: The dispute concerns the proper appellate forum following the entry into force of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 58/2003, which, under Art. II(3) and Art. 725(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, preserves the appeal routes and deadlines of the law under which the challenged decision was pronounced for judgments issued before the new law's adoption. The court granted the referral only, without deciding the merits, and held that because the underlying judgment predated the ordinance, the case must proceed according to the earlier procedural provisions.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural orders law reforms Civil Procedure Code emergency government ordinance fiscal law rule of law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 725 pct. 4 C. proc. civ
Procedural rule used to confirm that decisions rendered before the new law remain subject to the appeals and time limits of the old law.
art. 302 C. proc. civ
Applied to justify that the appeal was validly filed with the lower court, which should forward it to the competent court.
Art. II alin. (3) din O.U.G. nr. 58/2003
Basis for determining that the appeal remains subject to the procedural rules in force at the time the decision was pronounced.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3304/2003
Administrative appeal on pre-2003 judgment remitted to competent forum, prior procedural rules upheld
Decizia nr. 2879/2003
Jurisdiction of fiscal appeal remanded to first court under pre-2003 rules
Decizia nr. 2854/2003
Remittal of appeal to lower court based on transitional rule preserving prior jurisdictional competence for pre-amendment judgments
Decizia nr. 3486/2003
Transitionary application of appellate jurisdiction under Emergency Governmental Order No. 58/2003
Decizia nr. 1209/2004
Tax appeal remanded to original tribunal for jurisdictional routing under pre-2003 procedural rules

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. II alin. (3) din O.U.G. nr. 58/2003

Basis for determining that the appeal remains subject to the procedural rules in force at the time the decision was pronounced.

Art. 725 pct. 4 C. proc. civ.

Procedural rule used to confirm that decisions rendered before the new law remain subject to the appeals and time limits of the old law.

Art. 302 C. proc. civ.

Applied to justify that the appeal was validly filed with the lower court, which should forward it to the competent court.

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

Analizând regularitatea sesizării sale, constată următoarele:

În conformitate cu dispozițiile art. II alin. (3) din O.U.G. nr. 58/2003, intrată în vigoare – potrivit art. III din aceiași ordonanță – la data de 28 august 2003, „Hotărârile pronunțate înainte de intrarea în vigoare a prezentei ordonanțe de urgență rămân supuse căilor de atac și termenelor prevăzute de legea sub care au fost pronunțate”.

De altfel, același mod de reglementare se regăsește și în prevederile art. 725 pct. 4 C. proc. civ., care stabilesc că „Hotărârile pronunțate înainte de intrarea în vigoare a legii noi, rămân supuse căilor de atac și termenelor prevăzute de legea sub care au fost pronunțate”.

În cauză, se constată că hotărârea recurată a fost pronunțată la data de 4 august 2003, deci anterior intrării în vigoare a O.U.G. nr. 58/2003, situație în care în mod corect cererea de recurs a fost depusă la Tribunalul Teleorman, în temeiul art. 302 C. proc. civ., de unde aceasta urma să fie înaintată instanței competente, potrivit legii în vigoare, la data la care a fost pronunțată.

Așa fiind, în mod greșit dosarul a fost înaintat Curții Supreme de Justiție, în raport cu dispozițiile procedurale sus invocate.

În consecință, se va trimite dosarul la instanța unde a fost înregistrată cererea de recurs, aceasta urmând să-l înainteze instanței competente, potrivit dispozițiilor procedurale anterioare datei de 28 august 2003.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

IN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Trimite cererea de recurs, formulată de C.G., împotriva sentinței civile nr. 454 din 4 august 2003, a Tribunalului Teleorman, la Tribunalul Teleorman.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi 29 septembrie 2003.