Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 4751/2005 AI generated

Compensation for non-returnable building increased; municipality's appeal annulled for lack of grounds, lower ruling upheld.

Case Number Decizia nr. 4751/2005
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (civil section) declared the appeal (recurs) filed by the municipality null and void for lack of grounds, thereby upholding the lower court rulings in favor of the claimant. The dispute arose from an action under Law No. 10/2001 concerning the restitution of a building that could not be returned in kind; the first-instance tribunal had partially admitted the claim and increased the equivalent monetary compensation from 187,921,119 to 955,668,903 lei, and the appellate court had dismissed the municipality's appeal. Procedurally, under Arts. 303(1) and 306(1) of the former Civil Procedure Code, an appeal must be filed with grounds within the legal term, and failure to do so renders it null, unless issues of public order are involved (Art. 306(2)), none being present here; consequently, the appeal was annulled and the prior decision remained final.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 303 alin. (1) C. proc. civ, art. 306 alin. (1) C. proc. civ, art. 306 alin. (2) C. proc. civ; Compensation for non-returnable building increased; municipality's appeal annulled for lack of grounds, lower ruling upheld: The dispute arose from an action under Law No. 10/2001 concerning the restitution of a building that could not be returned in kind; the first-instance tribunal had partially admitted the claim and increased the equivalent monetary compensation from 187,921,119 to 955,668,903 lei, and the appellate court had dismissed the municipality's appeal. Procedurally, under Arts. 303(1) and 306(1) of the former Civil Procedure Code, an appeal must be filed with grounds within the legal term, and failure to do so renders it null, unless issues of public order are involved (Art. 306(2)), none being present here; consequently, the appeal was annulled and the prior decision remained final.

Keywords

AI generated
restitution and compensation grounds for cassation civil dispute public building land and buildings increased compensation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 303 alin. (1) C. proc. civ
Conform art. 303 alin. (1) C. proc. civ., recursul se va motiva prin însăși cererea de recurs sau înlăuntrul termenului de recurs.
art. 306 alin. (1) C. proc. civ
Basis for finding the appeal null because it was not motivated within the legal term.
art. 306 alin. (2) C. proc. civ
Considered in the dispositive, confirming that no public-order grounds were invoked from office, thus applying the nullity sanction.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 6817/2012
Municipality’s appeal annulled for lack of statutory grounds; restitution ruling upheld.
Decizia nr. 226/2010
Municipality's appeal dismissed; compensation order for confiscated building and yard upheld.
Decizia nr. 6697/2012
Restitution in kind of building and land upheld against municipality's appeal as unfounded
Decizia nr. 7469/2011
Nullity of municipality's appeal upheld; compensation award for restitution claim stands.
Decizia nr. 9769/2009
Municipality’s restitution appeal annulled for lack of statutory grounds; restitution in kind upheld

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 306 alin. (1) C. proc. civ.

Basis for finding the appeal null because it was not motivated within the legal term.

Art. 306 alin. (2) C. proc. civ.

Considered in the dispositive, confirming that no public-order grounds were invoked from office, thus applying the nullity sanction.

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 recursului de față;

Din examinarea lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

Tribunalul Vrancea, prin sentința civilă nr. 192 din 17 iunie 2004 a admis în parte acțiunea formulată de reclamanta P.E., a modificat dispoziția nr. 238 din 15 decembrie 2003 emisă de Primăria municipiului Adjud în temeiul Legii nr. 10/2001, în sensul că la art. 2 stabilește valoarea echivalentă a imobilului imposibil de restituit în natură și cuvenite reclamantei la suma de 955.668.903 lei în loc de 187.921.119 lei. Au fost menținute celelalte dispoziții ale deciziei.

Apelul declarat de Primăria municipiului Adjud a fost respins de Curtea de Apel Galați, prin decizia nr. 1271 din 22 septembrie 2004.

Împotriva acestei hotărâri a declarat recurs Primăria municipiului Adjud.

Recursul nu a fost motivat.

Conform art. 303 alin. (1) C. proc. civ., recursul se va motiva prin însăși cererea de recurs sau înlăuntrul termenului de recurs.

Potrivit art. 306 alin. (1) C. proc. civ., recursul este nul dacă nu a fost motivat în termenul legal.

Astfel fiind, și întrucât nu sunt motive de ordine publică care pot fi invocate și din oficiu, art. 306 alin. (2) C. proc. civ., urmează a se constata nul recursul.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

IN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Constată, nul, recursul declarat de pârâta Primăria Municipiului Adjud împotriva deciziei nr. 1217/A din 22 septembrie 2004 a Curții de Apel Galați, secția civilă.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunțată, în ședință publică, astăzi 2 iunie 2005.