HCCJ. Approving the call for abstention of all judges. Territorial competence for solving the action

The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that, in accordance with art. 127 para. (1) from the Civil Procedure Code, the judge-plaintiff has the option to choose between the courts which are both territorially competent and indicated by the text of the law, only until referring the court.

In the present case, the plaintiff, in its capacity as a judge of the Oraviţa court of law, addressed a request for summons to the court where he was operating, and through the random distribution of the cases, the file came back to the panel of judges chaired by the same plaintiff – judge, which attracted the request for abstention of the judge, followed by the abstentions of the other judges in the panel.

The hierarchical superior court which settled the request, applied the principle of the extension of competence provided by art. 52 from the Civil Procedure Code and decided to send the case to another court of the same grade in the circumscription (Resita court of law) and subsequently this court, as a result of a clarification submitted by the plaintiff, declined its jurisdiction in favor of Dr. Tr. Severin court. In solving the negative conflict of jurisdiction, the High Court held that the court in Resita could not discuss the absolute territorial competence established by art. 127 para. (1) Civil Procedure Code, as the exception had no object considering the application of art. 52, which had the authority of “res judicata”, the abstention`s approval being solved through a resolution which was not subject to appeal, according to art. 53 para. (2) in the Civil Procedure Code.

:: The Source: JURIDICE.ro

Adina Elena OPREA
Junior lawyer

Related posts