Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 306/2006 AI generated

Debtor’s appeal admitted; execution authorization quashed and remanded to Tribunal as proper appellate court.

Case Number Decizia nr. 306/2006
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 admitted the debtor’s appeal, quashed the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (which had upheld the lower court’s ruling authorizing forced real-estate execution), and remanded the case to the Bucharest Tribunal as the proper appellate court. The dispute arose from a creditor’s application for forced execution against the debtor’s property; after the first-instance court approved execution and the appeal was dismissed, the debtor appealed to the High Court. The High Court, acting of its own motion, found that under Law No. 219/2005—which amended the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Article 2(3) and Article 373¹—the Tribunal, not the Court of Appeal, had material jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the first-instance ruling, because such rulings were no longer subject to appeal but only to recourse. The Court therefore quashed the lower appellate decision and sent the case to the Bucharest Tribunal for determination of the appeal on the merits.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 2 pct. 3 C. proc. civ, art. 3731 C. proc. civ; Debtor’s appeal admitted; execution authorization quashed and remanded to Tribunal as proper appellate court: The dispute arose from a creditor’s application for forced execution against the debtor’s property; after the first-instance court approved execution and the appeal was dismissed, the debtor appealed to the High Court. The High Court, acting of its own motion, found that under Law No. 219/2005—which amended the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Article 2(3) and Article 373¹—the Tribunal, not the Court of Appeal, had material jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the first-instance ruling, because such rulings were no longer subject to appeal but only to recourse. The Court therefore quashed the lower appellate decision and sent the case to the Bucharest Tribunal for determination of the appeal on the merits.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Code Roman law determination of jurisdiction real property appealability of remand decision exempt property from execution

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 2 pct. 3 C. proc. civ
Basis for establishing the material competence of the Tribunal to judge the appeal, leading to the cassation and referral.
art. 3731 C. proc. civ
civ., tribunalul judecă recursurile împotriva hotărârilor pronunțate de judecătorii, care potrivit noii legi nu mai sunt supuse apelului (în speță art. 3731 C. proc. civ.).
AI generated
Decizia nr. 4952/2005
Debtor’s appeal allowed; execution-authorization order quashed and remanded for improper appellate jurisdiction.
Decizia nr. 4882/2005
Forced execution refusal quashed and remanded for creditor appeal on procedural grounds
Decizia nr. 6830/2005
Debtor's appeal over forced execution referred to Court of Appeal; lower rulings remain in force
Decizia nr. 4884/2005
Competence to hear recourse against non-contentious forced execution authorization: remand from appellate court to tribunal
Decizia nr. 2800/2005
Debtor's appeal admitted; enforcement authorization quashed and remanded for retrial as appeal deadline runs from formal communication.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 2 pct. 3 C. proc. civ.

Basis for establishing the material competence of the Tribunal to judge the appeal, leading to the cassation and referral.

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:

Prin încheierea din data de 11 februarie 2004, Judecătoria Buftea a încuviințat executarea silită imobiliară la cererea formulată de creditoarea B.R.D. G.S.G. SA București, împotriva debitoarei SC P.T. SA.

Apelul declarat de debitoare împotriva încheierii mai sus citate a fost respins prin decizia nr. 311 din 16 iunie 2004 a Curții de Apel București, secția a VI-a comercială.

Împotriva acestei decizii a declarat recurs aceeași debitoare.

Din oficiu, Înalta Curte a invocat excepția de necompetență materială a acestei instanțe în soluționarea pricinii, în raport de prevederile Legii nr. 219/2005, privind aprobarea O.U.G. nr. 138/2000 pentru modificarea și completarea Codului de procedură civilă.

Astfel, potrivit noilor reglementări intervenite prin adoptarea legii mai sus citate, prin care se aduc modificări Codului de procedură civilă, privind căile de atac și competența de soluționare a acestora în materia executării silite, norme imperative de imediată și strictă aplicare, Curtea constată că potrivit art. 2 pct. 3 C. proc. civ., tribunalul judecă recursurile împotriva hotărârilor pronunțate de judecătorii, care potrivit noii legi nu mai sunt supuse apelului (în speță art. 3731 C. proc. civ.).

Față de cele ce preced, Curtea va admite recursul, va casa decizia atacată și va trimite cauza spre competentă soluționare a recursului, Tribunalului București.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Admite recursul declarat de debitoarea SC P.T. SA, împotriva deciziei nr. 311 din 16 iunie 2004, pronunțată de Curtea de Apel București, secția a VI-a comercială.

Casează decizia atacată și trimite cauza Tribunalului București, ca instanță de recurs.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunțata în ședință publică, astăzi 27 ianuarie 2006.