Legislator Case Law & Legislation
ICCJ_192242 AI generated

Admissibility of extraordinary review challenge concerning whether contravention deadline limits post-service amendment of complaint to allege new illegality grounds

Case Number ICCJ_192242
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice, sitting as the Complete Panel for the Settlement of Legal Issues, dismissed as inadmissible the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Cluj County Court, thereby determining that the conflict regarding the interpretation of the contested legal provision remains unresolved at this instance and leaving the lower court to proceed with its examination. The dispute concerned whether Article 31(1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 2/2001 regarding the legal regime of contraventions derogates from Article 204(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically addressing whether a plaintiff loses the right to modify the summons or add new grounds of illegality after the 15-day deadline for appealing a contraventional process-verbal has expired. The decision relied on procedural rules governing the admissibility of preliminary referrals under the Code of Civil Procedure, establishing that the specific submission failed to meet the statutory requirements for the Supreme Court to intervene in the interpretation of the conflicting norms.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Admissibility of extraordinary review challenge concerning whether contravention deadline limits post-service amendment of complaint to allege new illegality grounds: The dispute concerned whether Article 31(1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 2/2001 regarding the legal regime of contraventions derogates from Article 204(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically addressing whether a plaintiff loses the right to modify the summons or add new grounds of illegality after the 15-day deadline for appealing a contraventional process-verbal has expired. The decision relied on procedural rules governing the admissibility of preliminary referrals under the Code of Civil Procedure, establishing that the specific submission failed to meet the statutory requirements for the Supreme Court to intervene in the interpretation of the conflicting norms.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural deadline preliminary ruling procedure Civil Procedure Code statutory grounds ground for review preliminary decision
AI generated

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. 49 Dosar nr. 884/1/2022

Şedinţa de la 19 septembrie 2022

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Cluj – Secţia mixtă de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, de conflicte de muncă si asigurări sociale în Dosarul nr. 1782/211/2021, pentru pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile privind dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

Se poate considera faptul că prevederea art. 31 alin. (1) din Ordonanța Guvernului nr. 2/2001 privind regimul juridic al contravenţiilor, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 180/2002, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, derogă de la prevederile art. 204 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă în sensul că, în ipoteza formulării unei plângeri contravenţionale, petentul nu are posibilitatea de a-şi modifica cererea de chemare în judecată, inclusiv prin formularea unor motive noi de nelegalitate/netemeinicie a procesului-verbal, ulterior expirării termenului de 15 zile de la comunicarea procesului-verbal de contravenţie?

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 19 septembrie 2021.