Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_150114 AI generated

Competence to investigate forgery: civil versus criminal jurisdiction under CPC and CCP

Case Number ICCJ_150114
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 filed by a Court of Appeal. The underlying dispute concerned a procedural conflict of competence: whether the power to investigate allegations of forgery (fals) belongs to the civil or criminal jurisdiction. The court applied Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the inadmissibility of the referral, leaving the substantive legal question regarding the interpretation of Article 308 of the Code of Civil Procedure in correlation with Article 5491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unresolved at the supreme court level.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Competence to investigate forgery: civil versus criminal jurisdiction under CPC and CCP: The underlying dispute concerned a procedural conflict of competence: whether the power to investigate allegations of forgery (fals) belongs to the civil or criminal jurisdiction. The court applied Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the inadmissibility of the referral, leaving the substantive legal question regarding the interpretation of Article 308 of the Code of Civil Procedure in correlation with Article 5491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unresolved at the supreme court level.

Keywords

AI generated
article of civil procedure conflict of jurisdiction forgery proceedings preliminary ruling procedure preliminary question investigative procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural basis mandating the obligation of the court to issue the ruling on the admissibility of the preliminary ruling request.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 31/2019
Competence for investigating civil forgery: civil vs. criminal jurisdiction under CPC Art. 308 and CPP Art. 5491
Decizia nr. 2751/2010
Civil versus administrative jurisdiction for civil examination of forgery after criminal prescription under Art. 184 CCP
Decizia nr. 1332/2021
Strămutare for legitimate suspicion: exclusion of High Court competence under Art. 142(1) CPC
ICCJ_86208
Competence of civil courts versus prosecutors to annul falsified documents when criminal proceedings cease at the investigation stage
Decizia nr. 2377/2009
Falsification of civil appeal deposit request and validity of delegated police pre-investigative acts in refusal to prosecute forgery complaint

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Procedural basis mandating the obligation of the court to issue the ruling on the admissibility of the preliminary ruling request.

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. 31 Dosar nr. 847/1/2019

Şedinţa din 24 iunie 2019

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge ca inadmisibilă sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Secţia a IV-a civilă în dosarul nr. 30261/300/2016 în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept: „În interpretarea art 308 din Codul de procedură civilă, adoptat prin Legea nr. 134/2010, coroborat cu art. 5491 din Codul de procedură penală, adoptat prin Legea nr. 135/2010, competenţa de a cerceta falsul aparţine instanţei civile sau instanţei penale?”.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 24 iunie 2019.