The High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled that the reason for revision, which is stated in art. 322 pt. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (art. 509 par. 1 pt. 1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure), can be brought into discussion when the court has pronounced itself on some aspects that had not been previously demanded or has failed to order on some claim or has given more than was requested. This motive comes as the consequence of the fact that the principle of party disposition was not taken into account, according to it, the one who sets the trial limits is the plaintiff, through the object of the sue petition, more precisely the mere petition. In this case, the High Court has determined that through the phrase „pretension” one must understand only those claims that were the object of the trial, that have established its limits, that have set the object as it was brought to court, which is not the instance in our case, when the court of recourse has dismissed the plaintiff’s recourse, as being ungrounded, without changing the solution on the files that have fixed the trial frame and that the court is said to have omitted to analyze. (Decision no. 1412 of the 21st of May 2015 pronounced in recourse by the Civil Section 2 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, covering compensations)
:: The Source: JURIDICE.ro
