Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_144251 AI generated

Standing to Challenge Judicial Inspection Complaint Rejection Under Superior Council of Magistracy Law

Case Number ICCJ_144251
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 a preliminary ruling submitted by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, thereby leaving the lower court's procedural posture unchanged. The dispute concerned the interpretation of Article 47(5) of Law No. 317/2004 regarding the Superior Council of Magistracy, specifically whether the resolution rejecting a complaint filed with the Judicial Inspection could be challenged by any person claiming to be aggrieved in a legally recognized right or private legitimate interest, such as the magistrate subject to the initial complaint, or exclusively by the individual who filed the original complaint. The decision was grounded in the procedural requirements for admissibility under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs the power of the High Court to settle legal issues through binding preliminary rulings.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 47 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 317/2004, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Standing to Challenge Judicial Inspection Complaint Rejection Under Superior Council of Magistracy Law: The dispute concerned the interpretation of Article 47(5) of Law No. 317/2004 regarding the Superior Council of Magistracy, specifically whether the resolution rejecting a complaint filed with the Judicial Inspection could be challenged by any person claiming to be aggrieved in a legally recognized right or private legitimate interest, such as the magistrate subject to the initial complaint, or exclusively by the individual who filed the original complaint. The decision was grounded in the procedural requirements for admissibility under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs the power of the High Court to settle legal issues through binding preliminary rulings.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial inspection standing to appeal preliminary ruling procedure grounds for cassation Civil Procedure Code preliminary decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 47 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 317/2004
„Dispoziţiile art. 47 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 317/2004 privind Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii, republicată, cu modificările ulterioare se interpretează în sensul că rezoluţia de respingere a sesizării, prevăzută de art.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited to establish the binding nature of the decision rendered by the Complete for settling legal issues.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 4128/2020
Challenge to Judicial Inspection's dismissal of complaint: lack of passive standing of Superior Council of Magistracy and failure to exhaust pre-litigation procedure
Decizia nr. 60/2018
Standing of targeted magistrate to challenge Judicial Inspection disciplinary resolution closure
Decizia nr. 351/2011
Complaint against Judicial Inspection resolution inadmissible; appeal dismissed and costs ordered
Decizia nr. 2492/2023
Appeal dismissed; action against Judicial Inspection upheld as void due to its sole standing, Council not a proper defendant.
Decizia nr. 506/2019
Admissibility of judicial challenge to judicial inspection closure resolution without prior administrative procedure under post-unconstitutionalization legal framework

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited to establish the binding nature of the decision rendered by the Complete for settling legal issues.

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. 59 Dosar nr. 1315/1/2018

Şedinţa din 24 septembrie 2018

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel București – Secția a VIII-a contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în dosarul nr. 4506/2/2017, în vederea pronunțării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

„Dispoziţiile art. 47 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 317/2004 privind Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii, republicată, cu modificările ulterioare se interpretează în sensul că rezoluţia de respingere a sesizării, prevăzută de art. 47 alin. (1) lit. c), poate fi contestată la Curtea de Apel Bucureşti doar de către persoana care a formulat sesizarea sau şi de către o altă persoană care se consideră vătămată într-un drept recunoscut de lege sau într-un interes legitim privat, cum ar fi, spre exemplu, magistratul împotriva căruia a fost formulată sesizarea la Inspecţia Judiciară, sesizare ce a fost respinsă”.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 24 septembrie 2018.