Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_85426 AI generated

Appeal against audit ruling time-barred as filing with wrong court cannot cure late appeal.

Case Number ICCJ_85426
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, ruling in favor of the respondent. The appellant's appeal against a decision of the Court of Auditors' Jurisdictional Section was filed late: the appealed decision was communicated on 7 April 2001, and the appeal was registered with the Court of Auditors on 8 May 2001, exceeding the 15-day statutory limit under Article 83 of Law No. 94/1992. The fact that the appeal was initially filed directly with the Supreme Court of Justice was irrelevant, because Article 302 of the Civil Procedure Code imperatively requires that an appeal be filed with the court whose decision is challenged, under penalty of nullity. That nullity is absolute and of public order, aimed at ensuring proper administration of justice, so the date of filing with the appellate court cannot be counted toward the appeal deadline.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art.302 Cod procedură civilă; Appeal against audit ruling time-barred as filing with wrong court cannot cure late appeal: The appellant's appeal against a decision of the Court of Auditors' Jurisdictional Section was filed late: the appealed decision was communicated on 7 April 2001, and the appeal was registered with the Court of Auditors on 8 May 2001, exceeding the 15-day statutory limit under Article 83 of Law No. 94/1992. The fact that the appeal was initially filed directly with the Supreme Court of Justice was irrelevant, because Article 302 of the Civil Procedure Code imperatively requires that an appeal be filed with the court whose decision is challenged, under penalty of nullity. That nullity is absolute and of public order, aimed at ensuring proper administration of justice, so the date of filing with the appellate court cannot be counted toward the appeal deadline.

Keywords

AI generated
time of filing deadline for communication calculation of time limit statutory audit article of civil procedure time limits for seeking redress

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art.302 Cod procedură civilă
Basis for declaring the appeal tardive due to the sanction of nullity for filing directly with the appellate court.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 2489/2012
Late filing of appeal in administrative litigation against audit chamber: strict 15-day deadline and exclusion of merits review
Decizia nr. 356/2003
Timeliness of jurisdictional appeal to Court of Accounts under Law No. 94/1992 in financial accountability dispute
Decizia nr. 7800/2013
Untimeliness of appeal against audit findings under 15-day statutory deadline
Decizia nr. 6107/2013
Untimeliness of administrative appeal against Court of Audit decision and failure to prove impediment beyond control for deadline reinstatement
Decizia nr. 3136/2011
Appeal rejected as time-barred despite service defects in tax restitution and inspection dispute.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art.302 Cod procedură civilă

Basis for declaring the appeal tardive due to the sanction of nullity for filing directly with the appellate 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

Recurs. Tardivitatea recursului în raport cu caracterul nulităţii prevăzute în art.302 din codul de procedură civilă

Este tardiv recursul depus direct la instanţa de recurs, iar nu la instanţa a cărei hotărâre este recurată, nulitatea prevăzută în art.302 din Codul de procedură civilă fiind de ordine publică.

Decizia nr.286 din 29 ianuarie 2002

Înainte de a se analiza motivele de recurs invocate, se procedează la verificarea introducerii în termen a recursului.

Potrivit dispoziţiilor art.82 din Legea Curţii de Conturi nr.94/1992, republicată, „împotriva hotărârilor pronunţate în ultimă instanţă de Secţia Jurisdicţională a Curţii de Conturi se poate face recurs la Secţia de contencios administrativ a Curţii Supreme”.

Art.83 din aceeași lege prevede că „recursurile prevăzute la art.81 și 82 se formulează în termen de 15 zile de la comunicarea hotărârii pronunţate de instanţele de jurisdicţie”.

În cauza de faţă decizia recurată a fost comunicată recurentului la 7 aprilie 2001, iar recursul a fost înregistrat la Curtea de Conturi la 8 mai 2001, deci peste termenul legal de 15 zile.

Împrejurarea că, iniţial, recursul a fost depus direct la Curtea Supremă de Justiţie nu prezintă relevanţă, având în vedere dispoziţiile art.302 Cod procedură civilă, care prevăd, în mod imperativ, că „recursul se depune la instanţa a cărei hotărâri se atacă sub sancţiunea nulităţii”.

Or, nulitatea prevăzută de art.302 Cod procedură civilă, nu este o nulitate de protecţie-relativă, care să vizeze un interes personal al unei persoane, ci este o nulitate de ordine publică absolută, care are în vedere o bună administrare a justiţiei, prin delimitarea clară a modului de exercitare a căilor de atac în sistemul român de jurisdicţie.

Data depunerii recursului direct la instanţa competentă să soluţioneze recursul nu poate fi avută în vedere la calcularea termenului legal de recurs, de vreme ce această neregularitate este sancţionată cu nulitatea.

În consecinţă, recursul a fost respins ca tardiv formulat.