Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Încheierea nr. 1820/2013 AI generated

Transfer of criminal proceedings venue to a different court of appeal based on jurisdictional conflicts and procedural defects in representation

Case Number Încheierea nr. 1820/2013
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the petition for the transfer of venue (strămutare) of Case No. 2299/336/2009, ordering that the proceedings at the Maramureș Court of Appeal be transferred to the Mehedinți Court of Appeal, while preserving prior procedural acts; the decision is final and subject to no appeal. The dispute concerned a civil case pending before the Maramureș Court of Appeal, where a party sought to transfer the trial to a different court, and the Public Prosecutor opposed the request as unfounded. Although a procedural defect was noted regarding the lack of mandatory qualification of the initial representative under Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court nevertheless ruled on the merits of the transfer request, exercising its discretion to relieve the local court from jurisdictional obstacles.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 68 C. proc. civ; Transfer of criminal proceedings venue to a different court of appeal based on jurisdictional conflicts and procedural defects in representation: Admite cererea formulată de petenta P.M. privind strămutarea pricinii care face obiectul Dosarului nr. 2299/336/2009* al Tribunalului Maramureș.

Keywords

AI generated
code of criminal procedure civil jurisdictional conflict pending proceedings procedural defect e-justice referral for lack of jurisdiction

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 68 C. proc. civ
nu are calitate de mandatar al petentei, astfel că față de dispozițiile art. 68 C. proc. civ., nu poate pune concluzii asupra cererii de strămutare.
AI generated
Sentința nr. 642/2013
Change of venue application remitted to Court of Appeal for lack of High Court jurisdiction.
Sentința nr. 465/2013
Change of venue petition jurisdiction under amended criminal procedure code: High Court lacks competence for first-instance transfers
Încheierea nr. 1253/2012
Transfer of venue between civil court instances: jurisdictional competence and procedural requirements for strămutare
Încheierea nr. 512/2013
Venue change jurisdiction under amended Criminal Procedure Code: transfer of lower court request to appellate court
Sentința nr. 1092/2013
Transfer of criminal jurisdiction from court of first instance to appellate court under amended Code of Criminal Procedure

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

Se referă de către magistratul asistent că, potrivit ECRIS, sistemul național de gestiune informatică a dosarelor, Dosarul nr. 2299/336/2009* al Tribunalului Maramureș, a cărui strămutare se solicită, are termen de judecată la 30 mai 2013.

Înalta Curte, verificând actele dosarului, constată că numitul P.C. nu are calitate de mandatar al petentei, astfel că față de dispozițiile art. 68 C. proc. civ., nu poate pune concluzii asupra cererii de strămutare.

Având cuvântul cu privire la cererea de strămutare, intimata S.T., solicită admiterea cererii și strămutarea judecării cauzei la o altă instanță.

Reprezentantul Ministerului Public pune concluzii de respingere a cererii de strămutare, ca neîntemeiată.

Analizând cererea,

ÎNALTA CURTE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D I S P U N E

Admite cererea formulată de petenta P.M. privind strămutarea pricinii care face obiectul Dosarului nr. 2299/336/2009* al Tribunalului Maramureș.

Strămută judecata cauzei de la Tribunalul Maramureș la Tribunalul Mehedinți.

Păstrează actele de procedură îndeplinite înainte de strămutare.

Fără cale de atac.

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 1 aprilie 2013.