Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_178558 AI generated

Territorial competence of enforcement court for objections by co-debtors: interpretation of Civil Procedure Code Articles 651, 666, 712, 714, and 112

Case Number ICCJ_178558
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 as the Full Panel for Recourse in the Interest of the Law, admitted the plea filed by the Court’s Management College, establishing a binding, uniform interpretation of law. The dispute concerned a conflict regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the enforcement court competent to adjudicate an enforcement objection (contestația la executare) filed by one of several debtors listed in an enforcement title. The Court ruled that the competent court is the local court that initially authorized the forced execution of the specific title in question, excluding cases where other statutory provisions provide otherwise. This determination is based on the combined application of Articles 651(1), 666, 712, 714, and 112 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the decision carries mandatory force pursuant to Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; Territorial competence of enforcement court for objections by co-debtors: interpretation of Civil Procedure Code Articles 651, 666, 712, 714, and 112: The dispute concerned a conflict regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the enforcement court competent to adjudicate an enforcement objection (contestația la executare) filed by one of several debtors listed in an enforcement title. The Court ruled that the competent court is the local court that initially authorized the forced execution of the specific title in question, excluding cases where other statutory provisions provide otherwise. This determination is based on the combined application of Articles 651(1), 666, 712, 714, and 112 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the decision carries mandatory force pursuant to Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Keywords

AI generated
application for enforcement - Jurisdiction Civil Procedure Code conflict of jurisdiction territorial law pleas in law objection to debt enforcement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural provision cited to establish the obligatory and binding nature of the decision rendered in the recourse in the interest of the law.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 78/2026
Territorial competence for enforcement approval against solidary debtors under Civil Procedure Code Articles 651, 112, and 116
Decizia nr. 668/2017
Territorial jurisdiction for objection to enforcement with multiple debtors: application of civil procedure competence rules to execution proceedings
Decizia nr. 2723/2021
Territorial competence of the enforcement court under Art. 651 CPP in objection to enforcement cases
Decizia nr. 1911/2021
Territorial jurisdiction for objection to enforcement: enforcement court vs. debtor’s domicile court
Decizia nr. 2107/2020
Jurisdictional competence for enforcement objection: executing court versus court of original judgment under Civil Procedure Code Articles 714 and 651.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 651 alin. (1), art. 666, art. 712, art. 714 și art. 112 din Codul de procedură civilă

Substantive provisions interpreted to establish the mandatory uniform rule regarding the territorial competence of the enforcement court for adjudicating enforcement objections.

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

Procedural provision cited to establish the obligatory and binding nature of the decision rendered in the recourse in the interest of the law.

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 soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 20 Dosar nr. 1696/1/2021

Şedinţa din 27 septembrie 2021

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Colegiul de conducere al Înaltei Curți de Casație și Justiție şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea unitară a dispoziţiilor art. 651 alin. (1), art. 666, art. 712, art. 714 și art. 112 din Codul de procedură civilă, instanța de executare competentă teritorial să soluționeze contestația la executare propriu-zisă formulată de unul dintre debitorii la care se referă titlul executoriu este judecătoria care a încuviințat executarea silită a acelui titlu executoriu, în afara cazurilor în care legea dispune altfel.

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 27 septembrie 2021.