Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_134003 AI generated

Inadmissibility of request to clarify operative part of binding decision on a legal question

Case Number ICCJ_134003
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 dismissed as inadmissible the request for clarification of the operative part of its prior Decision No. 33, leaving the original decision in force. The dispute concerned a procedural motion filed by a party seeking to clarify the wording of a binding decision on a legal question previously issued by the Full Bench for resolving matters of law. The court denied the request, determining it was inadmissible under the general provisions for clarification of judgments, as the request did not meet the statutory requirements for such procedural remedies.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of request to clarify operative part of binding decision on a legal question: 33, leaving the original decision in force. The dispute concerned a procedural motion filed by a party seeking to clarify the wording of a binding decision on a legal question previously issued by the Full Bench for resolving matters of law. The court denied the request, determining it was inadmissible under the general provisions for clarification of judgments, as the request did not meet the statutory requirements for such procedural remedies.

Keywords

AI generated
operative part of judgment matter in dispute procedural issues statutory requirement urgent preliminary ruling procedure clarity of legal norms

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the court's decision on the inadmissible request for clarification.
AI generated
ICCJ_219285
Inadmissibility of request to clarify operative part of full bench decision clarifying issues of law
ICCJ_150118
Inadmissibility of request to clarify binding decision on question of law
Decizia nr. 1251/2017
Inadmissibility of cassation against final appellate decision on clarification request
ICCJ_150119
Clarification request for appellate decision on point of law held inadmissible.
Decizia nr. 1315/2016
Inadmissibility of clarification and completion request for a dismissal of cancellation appeal under Articles 2811–2812 Civil Procedure Code

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă

Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the court's decision on the inadmissible request for clarification.

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

ROMÂNIA

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept

Minuta deciziei nr. 43 Dosar nr. 2432/1/2016

Şedinţa din 29 mai 2017

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, cererea formulată de Marian Ştefan privind lămurirea dispozitivului Deciziei nr. 33 din 24 octombrie 2016, pronunţată de Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept, publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 108 din 8 februarie 2017.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 29 mai 2017.