Signature defects on appellate judgments: failure to trigger annulment under Art. 503(2)(1) CPC when signatures are substituted by panel or court presidents per Art. 426(4) CPC

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, acting through the Panel for Resolving Legal Questions, admitted a preliminary reference from the Ploiești Court of Appeal and established the binding legal principle that a decision drafted by one judge and signed by that judge alongside the panel president or court president (in accordance with Article 426(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure) does not constitute the procedural defect defined in Article 503(2)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This ruling resolves a dispute regarding the formal validity and signature requirements for judicial decisions in civil appeals, specifically determining whether the absence of individual signatures by all panel members on the drafted text invalidates the instrument under the specific ground for annulment provided in the law. The decision serves as a mandatory interpretation under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, clarifying that the specific signature configuration described is legally permissible and does not trigger the nullity clause in question.