-
Where other civil parties call for broadening the effect of declared appeal on the criminal side of the case and on other civil parties, and as far as conditions applying the extensive effect of the appeal are fulfilled, the judicial review court is bound to give effect to the provisions of Art. 373 in the C. Cr. Pr., obviously complying with the principle of non reformatio in pejus. The author argues that a contrary approach would be vulnerable and devoid of legal grounds, intended to set off the extensive effect of appeal from its purposes, which basically leads to the functional requirement of a court of appeal, consisting in examination of the case by extension, to be circumscribed to appeal statements. Thus, argues the author, it would add unacceptably to the law by way of interpretation, contrary to the principle of ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. -
Acþiunea în daune-interese care vizeazã antrenarea rãspunderii civile delictuale a AVAS în temeiul art. 998-999 C.civ. nu atrage aplicarea dispoziþiilor legii speciale cu privire la competenþa curþii de apel în primã instanþã, ci a celor ale art. 1 pct. (1) lit. a) C.pr.civ., fiind vorba despre un litigiu patrimonial (Înalta Curte de Casaþie ºi Justiþie, Secþia comercialã, decizia nr. 1896 din 21 mai 2010).
-
În legislaþia românã, oportunitatea manifestãrii procurorului în procedura insolvenþei aparþine în exclusivitate acestuia ºi se înscrie în liniile directoare oferite de art. 45 alin. (3) C.pr.civ. Legea nr. 85/2006 nu prevede obligativitatea comunicãrii Ministerului Public a hotãrârii de deschidere a procedurii, iar procurorul nu este titular al acþiunii în acoperirea pasivului. Autorul considerã cã instituirea obligaþiei procurorului de a participa ºi pune concluzii în procedurã ar asigura o apãrare eficientã a ordinii publice, oferind premisele înfãptuirii unei justiþii plenare, în care atât interesele de ordin privat, cât ºi cele generale ar fi ocrotite. „De lege ferenda”, se propune participarea obligatorie a procurorului la acþiunea în acoperirea pasivului.
-
Article 322 section 5, second phrase of the (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure provides that review of a final and binding decision in the Appellate Court or non-appealed and of a ruling passed by a court of last resort upon merits called forth may be requested „whether, following the rendering of the decision, a court order which grounded the decision under review claimed was abated or amended.” The author, in light of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, considers that the purport should be interpreted narrowly. Accordingly, the scope of Article 322 section 5, second phrase of the (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure may cover uncertified court orders exclusively (referred to as binding) because only these can be amended / abated under appeal or recourse, and not judgments passed within right of review procedures such as review or appeal for annulment, on account of complying with the principle of legal certainty.
