Legislator Case Law & Legislation
ICCJ_178523 AI generated

Inadmissibility of post-annulment motion for clarification of judgment dispositive

Case Number ICCJ_178523
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible a petition for clarification of the operative part of a prior decision issued by the same court, thereby leaving the original ruling intact and in force. The dispute concerned a procedural motion filed by a party to clarify the dispositive of a judgment rendered in a case pending before the Full Bench for Adjudicating Recourse in the Interest of the Law. The court’s refusal to entertain the clarification request was based on the principle that such petitions are inadmissible in this context, as implied by the procedural framework governing the Supreme Court's specialized bench, while the resulting decision is mandatory pursuant to Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of post-annulment motion for clarification of judgment dispositive: The dispute concerned a procedural motion filed by a party to clarify the dispositive of a judgment rendered in a case pending before the Full Bench for Adjudicating Recourse in the Interest of the Law. The court’s refusal to entertain the clarification request was based on the principle that such petitions are inadmissible in this context, as implied by the procedural framework governing the Supreme Court's specialized bench, while the resulting decision is mandatory pursuant to Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Keywords

AI generated
civil annulment Civil Procedure Code procedural issues operative part of judgment framework decision right of rescission

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is mandatory.
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to establish 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

Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 17 Dosar nr. 1.376/1/2020

Şedinţa de la 13 septembrie 2021

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E :

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, cererea formulată de Cârcei Elena privind lămurirea dispozitivului Deciziei nr. 22 din 14 septembrie 2020, pronunțată de Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție – Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii în dosarul nr. 1.376/1/2020, publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 1.208 din 10 decembrie 2020.

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi, 13 septembrie 2021.