Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 2870/2008 AI generated

Peremption of commercial appeal due to lapse of six-month suspension period

Case Number Decizia nr. 2870/2008
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice declared the appeal of the defendant company to be perished, leaving the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Sixth Commercial Section, dated April 12, 2007, in force as the final operative outcome. The dispute involved a commercial case where the appellate court had previously ruled on a claim, which the defendant subsequently challenged via appeal. The court found that after the judgment hearing was suspended on December 12, 2007, due to the parties' failure to appear, more than six months elapsed until the case was repromoted on the roll, during which time no party requested the resumption of proceedings. Based on the automatic perishment of appeals due to the lapse of the statutory time limit, the court applied Article 248, paragraph 4 (last sentence), Article 252, paragraph 1, and Article 312, paragraph 1 (last sentence) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 242 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ; Peremption of commercial appeal due to lapse of six-month suspension period: The dispute involved a commercial case where the appellate court had previously ruled on a claim, which the defendant subsequently challenged via appeal. The court found that after the judgment hearing was suspended on December 12, 2007, due to the parties' failure to appear, more than six months elapsed until the case was repromoted on the roll, during which time no party requested the resumption of proceedings. Based on the automatic perishment of appeals due to the lapse of the statutory time limit, the court applied Article 248, paragraph 4 (last sentence), Article 252, paragraph 1, and Article 312, paragraph 1 (last sentence) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Keywords

AI generated
suspension period lapse due to peremption res judicata commercial dispute article of civil procedure effects of the judgment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 242 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ
Prin încheierea pronunţată la data de 12 decembrie 2007 (fila 26), Înalta Curte a dispus, în temeiul art. 242 alin.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3212/2011
Commercial Appeal Peremption Due to Six Months of Inactivity During Suspendable Hearing
Decizia nr. 2674/2008
Commercial appeal peremption due to party non-appearance and six-month suspension limit
Decizia nr. 860/2008
Peremption of commercial appeal due to six-month inactivity following suspension of proceedings
Decizia nr. 176/2003
Perempted commercial appeal upheld due to appellant's six-month case inactivity.
Decizia nr. 2956/2009
Commercial appeal peremption due to six months of procedural inactivity after suspension

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 248 alin. ultim, art. 252 alin. (1) şi art. 312 alin. (1) ultima teză, C. proc. civ.

Provisions cited as the direct legal basis for the operative order to declare the appeal perished due to the lapse of the statutory time limit.

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 recursului de faţă,

Din examinarea lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

La data de 11 iunie 2007 s-a înregistrat pe rolul acestei instanţe cererea de recurs formulată de intimata pârâtă B.U.A.G. Austria, prin mandatar M.R., împotriva Deciziei comerciale nr. 182, pronunţată de secţia a VI-a comercială, a Curţii de Apel Bucureşti la data de 12 aprilie 2007.

Prin încheierea pronunţată la data de 12 decembrie 2007 (fila 26), Înalta Curte a dispus, în temeiul art. 242 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ., suspendarea judecăţii cauzei pentru lipsa părţilor, cu motivarea că acestea, deşi au fost legal citate şi nu au solicitat judecarea recursului în lipsă, nu s-au prezentat în instanţă la menţionatul termen.

Cum de la data suspendării judecăţii şi până la data de 16 iunie 2008, când cauza a fost repusă pe rol, din oficiu, în vederea constatării perimării (fila 27), au trecut mai mult de şase luni şi cum niciuna din părţi nu a solicitat reluarea judecăţii recursului, în temeiul art. 248 alin. ultim, art. 252 alin. (1) şi art. 312 alin. (1) ultima teză, C. proc. civ., Înalta Curte va constata perimarea acestei cereri.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Constată perimat recursul declarat de pârâta B.U.A.G. Austria, împotriva Deciziei Curţii de Apel Bucureşti nr. 182 din 12 aprilie 2007.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi 15 octombrie 2008.