Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 5520/2010 AI generated

Confidentiality bonus dispute appeal perimated for one-year inactivity.

Case Number Decizia nr. 5520/2010
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome struck_off
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court declared the appeal (recurs) filed by the claimants against the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal’s judgment No. 149 of 19 December 2007 as perimated (lapsed), thereby leaving the lower court’s decision — which had rejected the administrative action seeking annulment of Decision No. 318 of 8 October 2007 and a finding of discrimination due to the non-granting of a confidentiality bonus — in force. The appeal had been suspended in September 2008 for the parties’ unjustified absence and remained inactive for over a year. Applying Articles 248(1), 249–251, and 252(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that any claim or appeal is automatically perimated if left idle through the party’s fault for one year, and, as no procedural act had interrupted or suspended the peremption period, it ordered the appeal lapsed by operation of law. The decision is final and irrevocable.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 242 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ, art. 248 alin. (1) C. proc. civ, art. 249 - 251 C. proc. civ, art. 252 alin. (1) C. proc. civ; Confidentiality bonus dispute appeal perimated for one-year inactivity: 149 of 19 December 2007 as perimated (lapsed), thereby leaving the lower court’s decision — which had rejected the administrative action seeking annulment of Decision No. 318 of 8 October 2007 and a finding of discrimination due to the non-granting of a confidentiality bonus — in force. The appeal had been suspended in September 2008 for the parties’ unjustified absence and remained inactive for over a year. Applying Articles 248(1), 249–251, and 252(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that any claim or appeal is automatically perimated if left idle through the party’s fault for one year, and, as no procedural act had interrupted or suspended the peremption period, it ordered the appeal lapsed by operation of law. The decision is final and irrevocable.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural inactivity action for annulment Civil Procedure Code grounds for cassation non-administrative dispute procedural orders

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 242 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ
Cited for suspending proceedings due to the parties' unjustified absence.
art. 248 alin. (1) C. proc. civ
Main legal ground for declaring the appeal (recurs) perimated because the case remained inactive for one year.
art. 249 - 251 C. proc. civ
Cited to confirm that no acts interrupted or suspended the peremption period.
art. 252 alin. (1) C. proc. civ
Procedural provision applied to officially note the peremption of the appeal.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 5400/2010
Appeal perimated for one-year inactivity and dismissed as lapsed.
Decizia nr. 1443/2015
Claimant’s appeal perimated after one-year inactivity; prior dismissal for failure to seek compensation under Law No. 198/2004 upheld.
Decizia nr. 145/2003
Appeal declared perempted for inactivity over one year; lower court judgment upheld.
Decizia nr. 2567/2014
Appeal against suspension perimated for one-year procedural inactivity
Decizia nr. 3779/2013
Appeal perimmed for over one-year inactivity; appellant's procedural lapse bars challenge to restitution clarification order.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 242 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ.

Cited for suspending proceedings due to the parties' unjustified absence.

art. 248 alin. (1) C. proc. civ.

Main legal ground for declaring the appeal (recurs) perimated because the case remained inactive for one year.

art. 249 - 251 C. proc. civ.

Cited to confirm that no acts interrupted or suspended the peremption period.

art. 252 alin. (1) C. proc. civ.

Procedural provision applied to officially note the peremption of the appeal.

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, a constatat următoarele:

Prin Sentința nr. 149 din 19 decembrie 2010 a Curții de Apel Alba Iulia a respins acțiunea în contencios administrativ formulată de reclamanții L.V., P.N., N.I., B.I., T.V., D.E.M., I.F.E., P.A.N., P.O., O.I.O., C.N.F., F.D., etc, împotriva pârâtului C.N.C.D., privind desființarea Hotărârii nr. 318 din 8 octombrie 2007 și constatarea discriminării reclamanților raportat la neacordarea sporului de confidențialitate.

Împotriva acestei sentințe au declarat recurs reclamanții P.A.N., P.O., L.V., P.N., N.I., etc.

La termenul din 18 septembrie 2008, pentru lipsa nejustificată a părților, s-a dispus suspendarea judecării cauzei, în temeiul art. 242 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ.

Cauza a fost repusă pe rol, întrucât a rămas în nelucrare timp de un an.

Potrivit dispozițiilor art. 248 alin. (1) C. proc. civ., orice cerere de chemare în judecată, contestație, apel, recurs, revizuire și orice altă cerere de reformare sau de revocare se perimă de drept, chiar împotriva incapabililor dacă a rămas în nelucrare din vina părții timp de un an.

Cum, în cauză, nu s-au îndeplinit acte de procedură de natură a întrerupe sau suspenda perimarea, potrivit prevederilor art. 249 - 251 C. proc. civ., urmează a se face aplicarea dispozițiilor art. 252 alin. (1) din același cod, constatându-se din oficiu perimarea recursului.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Constată perimat recursul declarat de P.A.N., P.O., L.V., P.N., N.I., B.I., etc, împotriva Sentinței civile nr. 149 din 19 decembrie 2007 a Curții de Apel Alba-Iulia, secția comercială, de contencios administrativ și fiscal.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunțată, în ședință publică, astăzi 9 decembrie 2010.