Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 176/2003 AI generated

Perempted commercial appeal upheld due to appellant's six-month case inactivity.

Case Number Decizia nr. 176/2003
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome struck_off
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (Second Civil Section) found the appeal (recurs) to be perimated (lapsed) and thereby dismissed it, ruling in favor of the respondent, as the appellant had failed to pursue the case. The appeal had been filed on December 5, 2000 against a decision of the Ploiești Court of Appeal in a commercial dispute, but after the case was suspended on May 21, 2002 due to the parties' absence, the appellant let it remain dormant for over six months. Invoking Articles 248–252 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, the court held that the legal conditions for peremption were met—the case was commercial, no party requested judgment in absentia, and the prescribed delay had passed—thus rendering the appeal irrevocably extinguished.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 248 C. proc. civ, art. 248 – 252 C. proc. civ; Perempted commercial appeal upheld due to appellant's six-month case inactivity: The appeal had been filed on December 5, 2000 against a decision of the Ploiești Court of Appeal in a commercial dispute, but after the case was suspended on May 21, 2002 due to the parties' absence, the appellant let it remain dormant for over six months. Invoking Articles 248–252 of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, the court held that the legal conditions for peremption were met—the case was commercial, no party requested judgment in absentia, and the prescribed delay had passed—thus rendering the appeal irrevocably extinguished.

Keywords

AI generated
judgment in absentia commercial dispute Civil Procedure Code reasonable duration of the proceedings standing to appeal lapse due to peremption

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 248 C. proc. civ
Basis for finding the appeal perimed (lapsed) due to inactivity.
art. 248 – 252 C. proc. civ
Legal conditions for perimare (lapse) applied to declare the appeal perimed.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3162/2009
Peremption of commercial appeal for inactivity: application of six-month inactivity rule under Article 248 Civil Procedure Code
Decizia nr. 4296/2010
Appeal lapsed by peremption for six-month inactivity in commercial dispute.
Decizia nr. 2669/2020
Peremption of appeal upheld for six-month procedural inactivity.
Decizia nr. 3212/2011
Commercial Appeal Peremption Due to Six Months of Inactivity During Suspendable Hearing
Decizia nr. 2653/2008
Commercial appeal lapsed for inactivity; lower court judgment final.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 248 C. proc. civ.

Basis for finding the appeal perimed (lapsed) due to inactivity.

art. 248 – 252 C. proc. civ.

Legal conditions for perimare (lapse) applied to declare the appeal perimed.

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:

La data de 5 decembrie 2000 s-a înregistrat recursul contra deciziei nr. 446 din 6 iunie 2000, fixându-se primul termen de judecată, la 21 mai 2002, când, pentru lipsa părților, conform art. 242 art. (2) C. proc. civ. s-a dispus suspendarea judecății.

Recurentul a lăsat dosarul în nelucrare, iar prin referatul din 25 noiembrie 2002 s-a constatat de grefă că au trecut mai mult de 6 luni de la data suspendării, fixându-se termen pentru perimare, potrivit art. 248 C. proc. civ.

Într-adevăr, litigiul are natură comercială, nici una din părți nu a cerut judecata în lipsă, fiind îndeplinite condițiile legale pentru perimare, prevăzute de art. 248 – 252 C. proc. civ., astfel că se va constata perimat recursul.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE

Constată perimat recursul declarat de pârâta S.C. C.P. S.R.L., împotriva deciziei nr. 984 din 7 noiembrie 2000 a Curții de Apel Ploiești, secția comercială și de contencios administrativ.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi 21 ianuarie 2003.