The High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled that the legal prorogation of the competence, stated in art. 123 par. 1 NCCP (meaning that the counter claim is judged by the court which is competent to solve the main claim), has effects during the whole trial, without taking into account the fact that the main application and the counter claim are solved at the same time or the court decides to split the counter claim and form a new file, because, by judging it separately, the counter claim will preserve its incidental feature related to the main claim, this quality being obtained by filing the application on the basis of the art. 209 NCCP, because it cannot be considered a statement of claim, according to art. 30 par. 3 NCCP. In this case, the High Court has stated that, being given the fact that the District Court of Sibiu has ruled, at the first hearing, date which was set after the completion of the adjustment stage, that it is competent to pronounce a solution to the main application and has acknowledged the plaintiff’s renunciation of its judgment, has remained invested with solving the separately recorded counter claim, without having the possibility to verify the competence to give a solution to such an incidental application, in the newly formed file. (Decision no. 222 of the 23rd of January 2015, pronounced by Civil Section 1 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice covering a negative conflict of competence)
:: The Source: JURIDICE.ro
