Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 3933/2005 AI generated

Negative conflict of jurisdiction resolved by assigning land registry rectification and property partition appeal to the Arad County Court

Case Number Decizia nr. 3933/2005
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Justice (High Court of Cassation and Justice) resolved a negative conflict of jurisdiction by establishing that the Arad County Court (Tribunalul Arad) had competence to hear the appeal, thereby directing the case file to that court for continued proceedings. The dispute originated from a civil judgment by the Arad District Court regarding land registry rectification and property partition between private parties, which was appealed to the Timișoara Court of Appeal; however, the Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction in favor of the Arad County Court, which subsequently reciprocally declined jurisdiction back to the Court of Appeal, triggering the referral to the supreme court as the regulator of competence under Article 22(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decisive legal basis for the ruling was the specific provisions of Law No. 493/2004, which mandated that appeals against district court judgments be heard by the county courts rather than the courts of appeal, thus confirming the Arad County Court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 22 alin. (3) C. proc. civ; Negative conflict of jurisdiction resolved by assigning land registry rectification and property partition appeal to the Arad County Court: The dispute originated from a civil judgment by the Arad District Court regarding land registry rectification and property partition between private parties, which was appealed to the Timișoara Court of Appeal; however, the Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction in favor of the Arad County Court, which subsequently reciprocally declined jurisdiction back to the Court of Appeal, triggering the referral to the supreme court as the regulator of competence under Article 22(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decisive legal basis for the ruling was the specific provisions of Law No. 493/2004, which mandated that appeals against district court judgments be heard by the county courts rather than the courts of appeal, thus confirming the Arad County Court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Keywords

AI generated
negative conflict of jurisdiction civil registry district land law civil judgment hearing of the parties determination of territorial jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 22 alin. (3) C. proc. civ
Cited as the legal basis for the Supreme Court to act as the regulator of jurisdiction in a negative conflict of competence.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 6316/2005
Land Registry Annullment and Partition Dispute Resolved by Negative Jurisdiction Conflict Regulation Based on Amended Civil Procedure Code Competence Provisions
Decizia nr. 6941/2005
Negative jurisdictional conflict over land registry parcelation appeal resolved in favor of the County Court
Decizia nr. 7095/2005
Jurisdictional conflict for land boundary rectification appeals under post-2004 procedural transfers
Decizia nr. 7865/2005
Negative jurisdictional conflict: Tribunal competence to hear appeals against land registry registration orders under Land Registration Law Art. 52
Decizia nr. 4750/2014
Jurisdictional conflict over land registry rectification: exclusive competence of territorial district court under Law 7/1996

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 22 alin. (3) C. proc. civ.

Cited as the legal basis for the Supreme Court to act as the regulator of jurisdiction in a negative conflict of competence.

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

Asupra conflictului negativ de competență de față,

Din examinarea lucrărilor dosarului, constată următoarele:

Judecătoria Arad, prin sentința civilă nr. 1198 din 10 martie 2004, pronunțată în dosarul nr. 1700/2003, a admis în parte cererea formulată de reclamanta L.A.G. împotriva pârâtei S.E., având ca obiect rectificarea de carte funciară și partaj și a admis cererea reconvențională formulată de pârâtă împotriva reclamantei, având ca obiect partaj.

Împotriva acestei sentințe a declarat apel reclamanta L.A.G. înregistrat la Curtea de Apel Timișoara sub nr. 3587/C/2004.

Prin decizia civilă nr. 2647 din 25 noiembrie 2004 Curtea de Apel Timișoara, secția civilă, a declinat competența de soluționare a apelului în favoarea Tribunalului Arad.

La rândul său Tribunalul Arad, prin decizia civilă nr. 22 din 9 februarie 2005 a declinat competența de soluționare a apelului în favoarea Curții de Apel Timișoara, secția civilă.

Ivindu-se conflict negativ de competență între cele două instanțe, dosarul a fost înaintat Înaltei Curți de Casație și Justiție, secția civilă și de proprietate intelectuală, spre a se pronunța în baza art. 22 alin. (3) C. proc. civ., ca regulator de competență.

În speță, având în vedere obiectul litigiului dedus judecății, precum și dispozițiile articolului unic al Legii nr. 493/2004, instanța supremă urmează să stabilească în favoarea Tribunalului Arad, căruia îi trimite dosarul pentru continuarea judecății.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Stabilește competența de soluționare a apelului declarat de reclamanta L.A.G. împotriva sentinței civile nr. 1198 din 10 martie 2004 a Judecătoriei Arad în favoarea Tribunalului Arad.

Pronunțată, în ședință publică, astăzi 12 mai 2005.