Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 6352/2005 AI generated

Competence allocation for appeals against judgments on credit rights between tribunal and court of appeal

Case Number Decizia nr. 6352/2005
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 resolved a negative conflict of jurisdiction, ordering that the Bucharest Tribunal (first instance appeal court) is competent to hear the appeal against a civil judgment, thereby dismissing the concurrent claim by the Bucharest Court of Appeal that it was the proper appellate body. The dispute arose because both the Bucharest Tribunal and the Bucharest Court of Appeal declared themselves incompetent to handle the appeal of a decision by the Bucharest Sector 3 Court of first instance, which had ruled on the existence of credit rights. The decisive legal basis was the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Articles 1(1), 2(b), and 2, which establish that cases involving the verification of credit rights fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of first instance at the county/sectors level, making the county tribunal the mandatory competent appellate instance, thus mandating the transfer of the case to the Bucharest Tribunal under Articles 20 and following of the Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 22 C. proc. civ; Competence allocation for appeals against judgments on credit rights between tribunal and court of appeal: The dispute arose because both the Bucharest Tribunal and the Bucharest Court of Appeal declared themselves incompetent to handle the appeal of a decision by the Bucharest Sector 3 Court of first instance, which had ruled on the existence of credit rights. The decisive legal basis was the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Articles 1(1), 2(b), and 2, which establish that cases involving the verification of credit rights fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of first instance at the county/sectors level, making the county tribunal the mandatory competent appellate instance, thus mandating the transfer of the case to the Bucharest Tribunal under Articles 20 and following of the Code.

Keywords

AI generated
conflict of jurisdiction civil judgment transfer of competence rules of procedure conflict rule preliminary ruling procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 22 C. proc. civ
Procedural basis cited in the reasoning and preceding the dispositive for the referral of the negative conflict of jurisdiction to the High Court.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 2512/2018
Competence to hear recourse against tribunal appeal in civil credit dispute
Decizia nr. 413/2018
Supreme Court jurisdiction over cassation appeals against tribunal decisions in consumer credit disputes: statutory gap and hierarchical competence
Decizia nr. 2783/2018
Jurisdictional competence for appeals against tribunal decisions in civil matters valued under 200,000 RON
Decizia nr. 45/2019
Jurisdiction for appeal of consumer credit contract ruling: Competence of Court of Appeal versus High Court based on claim value threshold
Decizia nr. 2680/2018
Jurisdictional competence for cassation of appellate decisions in credit disputes under statutory monetary thresholds

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 22 C. proc. civ.

Procedural basis cited in the reasoning and preceding the dispositive for the referral of the negative conflict of jurisdiction to the High Court.

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 din dosar, constată următoarele:

Litigiul dedus judecății are ca obiect constatarea existenței unor drepturi de creanță și a fost soluționat în primă instanță de Judecătoria sectorului 3 București prin sentința civilă nr. 1458 din 1 martie 2004.

Referitor la soluționarea căii de atac împotriva acestei sentințe, Tribunalul București prin decizia civilă nr. 135 din 18 februarie 2005 și Curtea de Apel București prin decizia civilă nr. 2104 din 30 noiembrie 2004 s-au declarat fiecare a fi necompetente, situație în care, în baza art. 22 C. proc. civ., pricina a fost înaintată la Înalta Curte pentru a hotărî asupra conflictului negativ de competență ivit în cauză.

Întrucât litigiu face parte din categoria proceselor și cererilor referitor la care potrivit art. 1 pct. 1 și art. 2 lit. b) și pct. 2 C. proc. civ., competența aparține judecătoriei în primă instanță, iar tribunalului, ca instanță de apel, rezultă că, în speță, competența de soluționare a căii de atac aparține Tribunalului București.

Așa fiind, în temeiul art. 20 și urm. C. proc. civ., regulatorul de competență urmează a fi pronunțat în favoarea tribunalului menționat.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DISPUNE:

Stabilește competența Tribunalului București pentru soluționarea apelului.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi 2 septembrie 2005.