The High Court of Cassation and Justice decided that, in accordance with Art. 69 para. (2) Civill Procedure Code (Art. 87 NCPC), the lawyer who assisted on one part of the proceedings, even without a mandate, may undertake any acts to preserve the rights, subject to a deadline, which could be lost in case of failure to perform them in due time and may also undertake any appeal against the given ruling.
In this case, however, the lawyer who signed the appeal did not represent the party in any appeal nor in the first grade court so that, without a mandate, he was not a representative of the party and could not exercise the appeal on its behalf. The High Court stated that the absence of the signature could still be fulfilled in terms of Art. 133 para. (2) Civil Procedure Code (Art. 196 par. 2 NCPC), meaning the court has granted a period and called the appellant-defendant, specifically requesting to sign the appeal, under the penalty of cancelling the request. As in these circumstances neither, the appellant did not intend to fulfill its obligation, the High Court, noting the lack of one important element in the appeal request, stipulated under the nullity penalty, cancelled the appeal. (Decision no. 2231 from 18 septembrie 2014 given in appeal by Section I Civil of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, covering compensation following expropriation).
:: The Source: JURIDICE.ro
Adina Elena OPREA
Junior Lawyer
