Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_141006 AI generated

Prohibition of corporate representation by legal entities or their counsel in civil proceedings; referral admitted and interpretation established

Case Number ICCJ_141006
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber for resolving issues of law, upheld the referral from the Sibiu Court of Appeal and ruled that the contractual representation of a legal entity in civil proceedings cannot be exercised by a mandate holder who is itself a legal entity, nor by that entity’s legal counsel or attorney. This decision resolves a procedural dispute concerning the validity of representation powers under Article 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, establishing that such representation must be performed by a natural person. The ruling is based on the interpretation of Article 664(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 84(1), specifically correcting the interpretation previously established by Decision No. 9/2016 of the High Court, thereby strictly limiting the subject capable of holding a power of attorney for corporate litigation.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 664 alin. (2) din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 84 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Prohibition of corporate representation by legal entities or their counsel in civil proceedings; referral admitted and interpretation established: This decision resolves a procedural dispute concerning the validity of representation powers under Article 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, establishing that such representation must be performed by a natural person. The ruling is based on the interpretation of Article 664(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 84(1), specifically correcting the interpretation previously established by Decision No. 9/2016 of the High Court, thereby strictly limiting the subject capable of holding a power of attorney for corporate litigation.

Keywords

AI generated
legal representation legal entity article of civil procedure power of attorney power of representation natural persons

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 664 alin. (2) din Codul de procedură civilă
Primary provision interpreted to establish that contractual representation of a legal person cannot be exercised by a legal entity mandate holder.
art. 84 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă
Provision regarding powers of attorney, cited to specify the limitation on who may hold such powers for a legal entity.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is binding on all courts.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
decizia nr. 9/2016
Denial of house arrest in European Arrest Warrant surrender due to risk of evasion arising from withdrawal of consent.
AI generated
ICCJ_128094
Prohibition of conventional representation of legal entities by other legal entities or their in-house counsel in civil proceedings
Decizia nr. 9/2016
Corporate representation by non-lawyer entity excluded under CPC Art. 84(1)
Decizia nr. 439/2020
Invalidity of conventional representation by a legal entity and non-compliance with mandatory written form requirements for legal assistance contracts in civil proceedings
ICCJ_83205
Presumption of corporate representation rights and waiver of signature defect in civil procedure
ICCJ_86186
Cassation in the interest of the law admitted; registration of commercial companies for legal consulting and representation declared inadmissible

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 664 alin. (2) din Codul de procedură civilă

Primary provision interpreted to establish that contractual representation of a legal person cannot be exercised by a legal entity mandate holder.

art. 84 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă

Provision regarding powers of attorney, cited to specify the limitation on who may hold such powers for a legal entity.

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

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is binding on all courts.

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. 19 Dosar nr. 3251/1/2017

Şedinţa din 19 martie 2018

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE: Admite sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Sibiu - Secţia I civilă în dosarul nr. 8860/306/2015 şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că: În interpretarea şi aplicarea art. 664 alin. (2) din Codul de procedură civilă, reprezentarea convenţională a persoanei juridice nu se poate face prin mandatar persoană juridică, nici prin consilierul juridic sau avocatul acesteia din urmă, potrivit art. 84 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă, astfel cum acesta a fost interpretat prin decizia nr. 9/2016 pronunţată de Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie - Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept. Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă. Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 19 martie 2018.