HCCJ. Tardiness exception solved in rehearing

The High Court of Cassation and Justice decided that, with regard to solving the action of tardiness exception, even if in the considerations presented in the decision rendered in appeal were given guidance for to the rehearing to analyze as defense the other critics from the appeal, this does not mean that the court which is responsible for the rehearing can not admit the tardiness exception, if this problem has not been solved by the court of appeal, as art. 315 para. (1) from Civil Procedure Code (art. 501 NCPC) provides that the decisions of the court of appeal are mandatory on untied problems of law and on the need of evidence administration. In this respect, the action being solved in the rehearing through the admission of an exception, correctly it was not possible to take into consideration other defense plans involving matters other than tardiness action, being also legal the solution of denial of the application for suspension of judgment based on the provisions of art. 244 para. (1) Civil Procedure Code (art. 414 NCPC), while first it is required to be solved the procedural exceptions or the substantive ones and only by rejecting these exceptions they might consider the question of suspension. (Decision no. 1643 of 28 March 2014 rendered in appeal by The Administrative and Fiscal Litigation department of The High Court of Cassation and Justice, covering the cancellation of the ownership certificate)

:: The source: JURIDICE.ro

Anda Laura TĂNASE

Related posts