Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 3464/2017 AI generated

Reexamination of annulment order: High Court declares material incompetence and refers case back to appellate court

Case Number Decizia nr. 3464/2017
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 ruled that it was materially incompetent to hear the case and declined jurisdiction, referring the matter back to the Court of Appeal of Târgu Mureș for a definitive resolution by a different panel. The dispute concerned a motion for reexamination filed by an association against a lower court's procedural order that had annulled its initial claim. The decisive legal basis was Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Code, which establishes that challenges to a decision of annulment (as opposed to final judgments) must be resolved via a motion for reexamination by the same first-instance or appellate court where the annulment occurred, rendering the High Court incompetent to adjudicate such procedural remedies.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 200 alin. (4) C. proc. civ, art. 200 alin. (6) C. proc. civ, art. 129 C. proc. civ, art. 131 al. (1) C. proc. civ; Reexamination of annulment order: High Court declares material incompetence and refers case back to appellate court: The dispute concerned a motion for reexamination filed by an association against a lower court's procedural order that had annulled its initial claim. The decisive legal basis was Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Code, which establishes that challenges to a decision of annulment (as opposed to final judgments) must be resolved via a motion for reexamination by the same first-instance or appellate court where the annulment occurred, rendering the High Court incompetent to adjudicate such procedural remedies.

Keywords

AI generated
civil annulment article of civil procedure declining of jurisdiction procedural orders matter in dispute serious defect in foreign proceedings

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 200 alin. (4) C. proc. civ
Substantive procedural rule establishing that the only remedy against an annulment order is a request for reexamination by the same court, which justified the finding of material incompetence.
art. 200 alin. (6) C. proc. civ
Procedural rule specifying that the reexamination request must be resolved by a different panel of the respective court, confirming the High Court's lack of jurisdiction.
art. 129 C. proc. civ
Procedural basis for the court's authority to transfer the case to the competent court due to lack of jurisdiction.
art. 131 al. (1) C. proc. civ
Procedural basis for the court's power to decline jurisdiction and refer the matter to the competent instance.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 1421/2018
Supreme Court declares material incompetence and transfers appeal on annulment challenge to Court of Appeal
Decizia nr. 3450/2017
Reexamination of annulled claim vs. appeal; lack of material jurisdiction for review of procedural regularization decisions
Decizia nr. 1515/2015
Material incompetence of the High Court in tax and administrative annulment appeals requiring referral to the appellate court.
Decizia nr. 1226/2015
Material incompetence of the High Court for cassation appeal against appellate labor decision
Decizia nr. 6152/2012
Appeal for annulment routed to court whose decision is attacked; High Court declines jurisdiction to Bucharest Court of Appeal.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 129 C. proc. civ.

Procedural basis for the court's authority to transfer the case to the competent court due to lack of jurisdiction.

art. 131 al. (1) C. proc. civ.

Procedural basis for the court's power to decline jurisdiction and refer the matter to the competent instance.

art. 200 alin. (4) C. proc. civ.

Substantive procedural rule establishing that the only remedy against an annulment order is a request for reexamination by the same court, which justified the finding of material incompetence.

art. 200 alin. (6) C. proc. civ.

Procedural rule specifying that the reexamination request must be resolved by a different panel of the respective court, confirming the High Court's lack of jurisdiction.

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 cererii de faţă;

Din examinarea lucrărilor din dosar constată următoarele:

Aşa cum reiese din practicaua prezentei decizii, Înalta Curte, în raport de dispoziţiile prevăzute de art. 200 alin. (4) C. proc. civ., a calificat calea de atac ca fiind reexaminare şi, din oficiu, a invocat excepţia necompetenţei materiale a Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie, cu referire la dispoziţiile art. 200 alin. (6) C. proc. civ.

Prin încheierea de şedinţă nr. 51/2008 din 23 mai 2017, pronunţată de Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş, secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, a fost anulat cererea de chemare în judecată formulată de petenta Asociaţia A., B. şi C.

Potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 200 alin. (4) C. proc. civ. "Împotriva încheierii de anulare, reclamantul va putea face numai cerere de reexaminare, solicitând motivat să se revină asupra măsurii anulării".

De asemenea, potrivit art. 200 alin. (6) C. proc. civ., "Cererea se soluţionează prin încheiere definitivă dată în camera de consiliu, cu citarea reclamantului, de către un alt complet al instanţei respective, desemnat prin repartizare aleatorie, care va putea reveni asupra măsurii anulării dacă aceasta a fost dispusă eronat sau dacă neregularităţile au fost înlăturate în termenul acordat potrivit alin. (2)".

În consecinţă pentru considerentele arătate şi în conformitate cu dispoziţiile art. 129, art. 131 alin. (1) prin raportare la art. 200 alin. (4) şi alin. (6) C. proc. civ., Înalta Curte va trimite cauza spre competentă soluţionare Curţii de Apel Târgu Mureş, secţia contencios administrativ şi fiscal.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Admite excepţia necompetenţei materiale a Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie, secţia contencios administrativ şi fiscal, invocată din oficiu.

Declină competenţa de soluţionare a cererii de reexaminare formulată de reclamanţii Asociaţia A., B. şi C. împotriva încheierii nr. 51 din 23 mai 2017 pronunţată de Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş, secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în favoarea de Curţii de Apel Târgu Mureş, secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal.

Definitivă.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 08 noiembrie 2017.