Judge acquiescence at the expert’s conclusions

The High Court of Justice and Cassation ruled as necessary for a judgement to have in the motivation the arguments in favour and also those against which formed, in fact and in law, the court’s judgement to the pronounced solution, arguments which must be reported not also at the confesses and defenses of the parties, but also at the legal provisions applicable to that judicial state. In this case, the first court proceeded at the admission of the pleading party’s action, reversing in part a decision of the NAFA about paying taxes to the state budget, being entirely part  on the conclusions of the expert, without a judge present fund its own arguments in support factual and legal decision that ruled without a point to show the factual and legal reasons for that criticism aside each applicant challenged administrative acts. Therefore, the High Court concluded that there were conflicts with Article 261 par. 1 point 5 Civil Procedural Code and was therefore infringed the applicant’s right to a fair trial, requiring the admission of the appeal, quashed the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to that court. ( Decision no. 1883 from 5th April 2012 pronounced in appeal by the Administrative and fiscal Department of the High Court of Justice and Cassation having as object annulment of an ANAF decision)

>> The source: JURIDICE.ro


Related posts