Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 573/2013 AI generated

Competence for review petitions under mandatory lower-instance jurisdiction rule

Case Number Decizia nr. 573/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice declined its jurisdiction to hear a petition for revision, transferring the matter to the Bucharest Court of Appeal; consequently, no substantive ruling on the underlying civil dispute was issued by this instance. The case involved a procedural challenge filed by a party against a 2010 appellate decision, which was initially lodged with the High Court. Relying on the imperative nature of Art. 323(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that petitions for revision be directed to the instance that rendered the challenged decision, the court applied Art. 158 and Art. 159(1)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine it was improperly seized, thereby leaving the 2010 appellate decision's status pending review by the originally competent lower appellate court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 323 alin. (1) C. proc. civ, art. 158 C. proc. civ, art. 159 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ; Competence for review petitions under mandatory lower-instance jurisdiction rule: The case involved a procedural challenge filed by a party against a 2010 appellate decision, which was initially lodged with the High Court. Relying on the imperative nature of Art. 323(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that petitions for revision be directed to the instance that rendered the challenged decision, the court applied Art. 158 and Art. 159(1)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine it was improperly seized, thereby leaving the 2010 appellate decision's status pending review by the originally competent lower appellate court.

Keywords

AI generated
declining of jurisdiction procedural review cassation review rules of procedure Civil Procedure Code matter in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 323 alin. (1) C. proc. civ
Established that the petition for revision must be directed to the instance that rendered the original decision, justifying the decline of jurisdiction.
art. 158 C. proc. civ
Provided the procedural basis for the court to examine and determine its own competence to hear the case.
art. 159 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ
Authorized the court to decline its competence in favor of the competent appellate court identified by the law.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 2595/2014
Jurisdiction for revision petitions against appellate decisions: mandatory application of the ordinary revision rule over the higher-instance exception
Decizia nr. 319/2024
Mandatory jurisdictional hierarchy for revision petitions: lack of supreme court competence and referral to appellate court under different statutory grounds
Decizia nr. 269/2014
Jurisdictional declination of revision petition: application of mandatory material competence rules under Art. 510(1) CPC instead of higher-instance review
Decizia nr. 316/2021
Revision petition jurisdiction: exclusive competence of the original court under Civil Procedure Code
Decizia nr. 2303/2018
Declination of jurisdiction for revision petition: mandatory competence of the court rendering the final decision under Art. 323(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 323 alin. (1) C. proc. civ.

Established that the petition for revision must be directed to the instance that rendered the original decision, justifying the decline of jurisdiction.

art. 158 C. proc. civ.

Provided the procedural basis for the court to examine and determine its own competence to hear the case.

art. 159 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ.

Authorized the court to decline its competence in favor of the competent appellate court identified by the law.

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

La data de 26 aprilie 2012 a fost înregistrată pe rolul Înaltei Curți de Casație și Justiție cererea de revizuire formulată de revizuentul C.P. împotriva Deciziei civile nr. 635 din 15 septembrie 2010 a Curții de Apel Ploiești, secția civilă și pentru cauze cu minori și de familie, cerere de revizuire întemeiată pe prevederile art. 322 pct. 1, 2 și 5 C. proc. civ.

Potrivit art. 323 alin. (1) C. proc. civ., cererea de revizuire se îndreaptă la instanța care a dat hotărârea a cărei revizuire se cere.

Cum în cauză decizia civilă a cărei revizuire se solicită a fost pronunțată de Curtea de Apel Ploiești, iar norma de competență reglementată de art. 323 alin. (1) C. proc. civ. este una imperativă, în baza art. 158 C. proc. civ. raportat la art. 159 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. proc. civ., Înalta Curte va declina competența de soluționare a acestei cereri, în favoarea Curții de Apel Ploiești.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Declină competența de soluționare a cererii de revizuire formulată de revizuentul C.P. împotriva Deciziei civile nr. 635 din 15 septembrie 2010 a Curții de Apel Ploiești, secția civilă și pentru cauze cu minori și de familie, în favoarea acestei instanțe.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi 7 februarie 2013.

Procesat de GGC - DG