In this study, the author analyzes the change occurred with regard to the response to the statement of defence, by point 27 of the Law No 310/2018 amending and supplementing the Law No 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code, as well as for amending and supplementing other normative acts. In the old Civil Procedure Code this act of procedure was not regulated, but it was customary to submit a response to the statement of defence. The author presents how the act of procedure called the „response to the statement of defence” has been regulated, being introduced by the Law No 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code. Initially, in Article 201 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, it was provided the obligativity of the applicant to submit the response to the statement of defence, after having communicated it. This obligation postponed the setting of the first trial term. The obligation to formulate a response to the statement of defence was also provided in Article 471 (6) of the Civil Procedure Code, for the settlement of the means of appeal, as well as in Article 490 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, for the settlement of the extraordinary remedy of the review. As regards the appeal and the review, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have not entered into force, but it has been applied the intermediary regime regulated by Article XV (4), for the appeal, and Article XVII (3), for the review, of the Law No 2/2013 on some measures to relieve the courts, as well as to prepare for the implementation of the Law No 134/2010.
By point 27 of the Law No 310/2018 the facultative character of the response to the statement of defence was enshrined. This amendment has also been extended to the case of settlement of the appeal and of the review. The author presents the arguments for which she considers that the legislator should have abandoned this procedural act, being sufficient to express the position of the applicant by way of the request for summons and of the defendant by way of statement of defence. The conclusions of the study are reflected in the opinion that the response to the statement of defence is not justified in the civil trial, creating an imbalance between the parties, the applicant being able to justify his claims both by the request for summons and by the response to the statement of defence, while the defendant has available only the statement of defence. Even if by abandoning the binding character of the response to the statement of defence, the fixing of the first term, respectively that for appeal and for review, takes place more quickly, the author proposes to fully abandon this act of procedure and considers that the legislator should have repealed the response to the statement of defence.
