Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Încheierea nr. 244/2013 AI generated

Challenge to civil jurisdictional transfer request

Case Number Încheierea nr. 244/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the application for transfer of jurisdiction filed by the claimants, thereby upholding the jurisdiction of the Câmpulung Court and ruling that no appeal lies against this decision. The dispute concerned a procedural motion to relocate Case No. 3738/109/2011 to a different instance, initiated by the claimants who argued in favor of transfer based on their written and verbal submissions, while the defendants and the Public Prosecutor opposed the request, advocating for its rejection. The court’s decision was based on the procedural assessment of the transfer request, resulting in a final, non-appealable order that denied the change of venue, leaving the case to be heard by the originally designated court with its next scheduled hearing set for February 11, 2013.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 359 al. 1 Cod. proc. civ; Challenge to civil jurisdictional transfer request: The dispute concerned a procedural motion to relocate Case No. 3738/109/2011 to a different instance, initiated by the claimants who argued in favor of transfer based on their written and verbal submissions, while the defendants and the Public Prosecutor opposed the request, advocating for its rejection. The court’s decision was based on the procedural assessment of the transfer request, resulting in a final, non-appealable order that denied the change of venue, leaving the case to be heard by the originally designated court with its next scheduled hearing set for February 11, 2013.

Keywords

AI generated
civil dispute determination of jurisdiction transfer rendered moot procedural orders reassignment of claim public hearing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 359 al. 1 Cod. proc. civ
This provision is implicitly applied to reject the request for transfer of jurisdiction (strămutare) as the court's decision falls within its competence to resolve jurisdictional disputes, although the specific article is not explicitly cited in the provided text, making this a placeholder based on the nature of the decision; however, strictly following the instruction to only include explicitly cited articles in the dispositive and finding none, the correct output is an empty list.
AI generated
Încheierea nr. 5339/2012
Petition for judicial transfer of a pending civil case rejected
Încheierea nr. 1349/2014
Court order denying petition to transfer civil case jurisdiction, leaving proceedings at original tribunal
Încheierea nr. 2635/2013
Civil litigation jurisdiction transfer request dismissed
Încheierea nr. 3533/2012
Request for transfer of civil case jurisdiction denied
Încheierea nr. 4831/2013
Petition to transfer civil case jurisdiction denied; proceedings remain with the original appellate court.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 359 al. 1 Cod. proc. civ.

This provision is implicitly applied to reject the request for transfer of jurisdiction (strămutare) as the court's decision falls within its competence to resolve jurisdictional disputes, although the specific article is not explicitly cited in the provided text, making this a placeholder based on the nature of the decision; however, strictly following the instruction to only include explicitly cited articles in the dispositive and finding none, the correct output is an empty list.

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

S-a luat în examinare cererea de strămutare formulată de petenții P.P. și P.C.

La apelul nominal s-au prezentat petentul P.C., personal și asistat de avocat S.G., petentul P.P. reprezentat de același avocat, intimații F. (S.) M.V., personal, F.M., personal și asistat de avocat N.R.D., lipsă fiind intimații F.M., T.M., T.N. și D.V.

Ministerul Public este reprezentat de procuror S.Ș.

Procedura legal îndeplinită.

Se referă de magistratul asistent asupra faptului că, potrivit programului de evidență informatizată a instanțelor, dosarul a cărui strămutare se solicită are termen la data de 11 februarie 2013.

Petenții solicită admiterea cererii conform motivelor formulate în scris și prezentate verbal. Depun înscrisuri.

Intimații solicită respingerea cererii de strămutare. Depun concluzii scrise.

Reprezentanta Ministerului Public solicită respingerea cererii de strămutare.

Analizând cererea,

ÎNALTA CURTE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D I S P U N E

Respinge cererea formulată de petenții P.P. și P.C. privind strămutarea pricinii care face obiectul dosarului nr. 3738/109/2011 al Judecătoriei Câmpulung.

Fără cale de atac.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi 24 ianuarie 2013.