Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 2739/2021 AI generated

Transfer motion referred to Cluj Court of Appeal as proper forum; High Court declines jurisdiction

Case Number Decizia nr. 2739/2021
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice declined its jurisdiction and referred the applicant’s motion to transfer (strămutare) case file no. x/2020 of the Sălaj Tribunal to another equal court, based on legitimate suspicion, to the Cluj Court of Appeal, which prevails as the competent forum; no appeal is available. The applicant sought the transfer of a civil case that was registered with the Zalău Court of First Instance on 20 February 2020 and was pending on appeal before the Sălaj Tribunal, within the territorial circuit of the Cluj Court of Appeal. Applying Article 142(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, which vests jurisdiction over transfer requests based on legitimate suspicion in the court of appeal having territorial jurisdiction over the court from which transfer is sought, the High Court held that, because the underlying case commenced after the 15 February 2013 entry into force of the new Code, the Cluj Court of Appeal—not the High Court—was the proper body to decide the motion.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 142 alin. (1) C. proc. civ, Art. 131 C. proc. civ; Transfer motion referred to Cluj Court of Appeal as proper forum; High Court declines jurisdiction: x/2020 of the Sălaj Tribunal to another equal court, based on legitimate suspicion, to the Cluj Court of Appeal, which prevails as the competent forum; no appeal is available. The applicant sought the transfer of a civil case that was registered with the Zalău Court of First Instance on 20 February 2020 and was pending on appeal before the Sălaj Tribunal, within the territorial circuit of the Cluj Court of Appeal. Applying Article 142(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, which vests jurisdiction over transfer requests based on legitimate suspicion in the court of appeal having territorial jurisdiction over the court from which transfer is sought, the High Court held that, because the underlying case commenced after the 15 February 2013 entry into force of the new Code, the Cluj Court of Appeal—not the High Court—was the proper body to decide the motion.

Keywords

AI generated
declining of jurisdiction civil dispute pending proceedings civil register transfer rendered moot e-justice

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 142 alin. (1) C. proc. civ
Determines the material competence for the request for transfer of the case, leading to the declination in favor of the Court of Appeal Cluj.
Art. 131 C. proc. civ
Basis for the court to check and rule on its own jurisdiction before proceeding.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3481/2018
Transfer motion on legitimate suspicion referred to Bucharest Court of Appeal after high court declines jurisdiction
Decizia nr. 2530/2014
Transfer request for legitimate suspicion referred to Court of Appeal Cluj as proper forum; no appeal available.
Decizia nr. 817/2015
Transfer request ruled outside High Court's jurisdiction; case remitted to Suceava Court of Appeal as competent forum.
Decizia nr. 1097/2020
Transfer motion sent to Suceava Court of Appeal as competent forum for suspicion-based case relocation
Decizia nr. 1339/2021
Transfer of case to Cluj Court of Appeal as High Court lacks material jurisdiction

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 131 C. proc. civ.

Basis for the court to check and rule on its own jurisdiction before proceeding.

Art. 142 alin. (1) C. proc. civ.

Determines the material competence for the request for transfer of the case, leading to the declination in favor of the Court of Appeal Cluj.

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

Şedinţa publică din data de 9 decembrie 2021

Asupra cauzei de faţă, constată următoarele:

Prin cererea înregistrată pe rolul Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie, secţia I civilă, la 14 octombrie 2021, petenta A. a solicitat strămutarea dosarului nr. x/2020 al Tribunalului Sălaj, la o altă instanţă egală în grad pentru motive de bănuială legitimă.

Conform verificărilor efectuate în sistemul informatic Ecris, cererea de chemare în judecată din dosarul ce face obiectul cererii de strămutare a fost înregistrată pe rolul Judecătoriei Zalău la 20 februarie 2020, aşadar, ulterior intrării în vigoare a noului C. proc. civ.

Potrivit art. 142 alin. (1) din acest cod, "Cererea de strămutare întemeiată pe motive de bănuială legitimă este de competenţa curţii de apel, dacă instanţa de la care se cere strămutarea este o judecătorie sau un tribunal din circumscripţia acesteia…"

Înalta Curte reţine că, în cauză, cererea de strămutare dedusă judecăţii este formulată cu privire la un dosar înregistrat ulterior intrării în vigoare a noului C. proc. civ., la 15 februarie 2013, dosar aflat în faza procesuală a apelului pe rolul Tribunalului Sălaj, instanţă aflată în circumscripţia teritorială a Curţii de Apel Cluj.

Pentru aceste considerente, în aplicarea dispoziţiilor art. 131 raportat la art. 142 alin. (1) C. proc. civ., se constată că instanţa competentă material să soluţioneze pricina este Curtea de Apel Cluj, instanţă în favoarea căreia va opera prezenta declinare de competenţă.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Declină competenţa de soluţionare a cererii formulată de petenta A. privind strămutarea pricinii care formează obiectul dosarului nr. x/2020 al Tribunalului Sălaj, secţia civilă, în favoarea Curţii de Apel Cluj.

Fără cale de atac.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 9 decembrie 2021.