Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_169131 AI generated

Scope of absolute judicial incompatibility in successive extraordinary appeals involving retrial and cassation

Case Number ICCJ_169131
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 in United Sections, admitted the appeal in the interest of law and established that a judge who has rendered a decision on appeal is absolutely incompatible to adjudicate a request for revision or a complaint for annement filed against a decision rendered in cassation against their own appellate decision. This ruling clarified the scope of judicial recusal in cases involving multiple successive extraordinary appeals, specifically distinguishing scenarios where a judge evaluates a retrial of their own initial decision versus a subsequent procedural stage. The court interpreted Article 41(1), first sentence, of the Civil Procedure Code, determining that absolute incompatibility arises when a judge is required to evaluate their own previous decision directly or indirectly through a subsequent extraordinary appeal (such as a complaint for annulment against a cassation decision reversing their appeal), but does not automatically apply in all complex retrial chains where the specific circumstances demonstrate the judge is not evaluating their own judgment.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 41 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; Scope of absolute judicial incompatibility in successive extraordinary appeals involving retrial and cassation: This ruling clarified the scope of judicial recusal in cases involving multiple successive extraordinary appeals, specifically distinguishing scenarios where a judge evaluates a retrial of their own initial decision versus a subsequent procedural stage. The court interpreted Article 41(1), first sentence, of the Civil Procedure Code, determining that absolute incompatibility arises when a judge is required to evaluate their own previous decision directly or indirectly through a subsequent extraordinary appeal (such as a complaint for annulment against a cassation decision reversing their appeal), but does not automatically apply in all complex retrial chains where the specific circumstances demonstrate the judge is not evaluating their own judgment.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial law procedural interpretation of judgment Civil Procedure Code civil annulment extraordinary revision appealability of remand decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 41 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă
Serves as the main ground for the ruling, establishing that the judge who pronounced the appeal decision is absolutely incompatible to solve the revision or annulment complaint against the subsequent cassation decision.
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to declare that the decision is mandatory.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 2241/2023
Judicial recusal for absolute incompatibility in consecutive extraordinary appeals: limits of indirect evaluation of own judgments and legality of recusal panel composition
ICCJ_171146
Judicial incompatibility in successive extraordinary appeals: scope of "same cause" under Art. 41 CPC
Decizia nr. 2105/2019
Judicial recusal and incompatibility arising from prior rulings on procedural admissibility of extraordinary appeals
Decizia nr. 1896/2020
Incompatibility of judge hearing successive appeals after remand for retrial
ICCJ_86107
Judge eligibility to adjudicate revision or annulment appeals in the same case: strict interpretation of incompatibility rules under Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Code

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 41 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă

Serves as the main ground for the ruling, establishing that the judge who pronounced the appeal decision is absolutely incompatible to solve the revision or annulment complaint against the subsequent cassation decision.

art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă

Procedural rule cited in the dispositive to declare that the decision is mandatory.

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

R O M Â N I A

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

SECŢIILE UNITE

Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 24 Dosar nr. 1373/1/2020

Şedinţa de la 19 octombrie 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E :

Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Colegiul de conducere al Curţii de Apel Braşov şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În cazul în care judecătorul este învestit să judece o cale extraordinară de atac de retractare împotriva unei decizii date tot într-o cale extraordinară de atac de retractare exercitată succesiv împotriva hotărârii sale din apel sau recurs, nu sunt aplicabile prevederile art. 41 alin. (1) teza întâi din Codul de procedură civilă, dacă din circumstanţele particulare ale litigiului reiese în mod evident că acesta nu este pus în situaţia de a-şi evalua, direct sau indirect, propria hotărâre.

În temeiul art. 41 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă, judecătorul care a pronunţat decizia din apel este incompatibil absolut să soluţioneze cererea de revizuire sau contestaţia în anulare exercitată împotriva deciziei date în recursul declarat împotriva deciziei sale din apel.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 19 octombrie 2020.