ABROGAREA PROCEDURII DE FILTRU ÎN RECURSUL CIVIL

The study analyzes the opinion on the repeal of the filter procedure when the review in the civil trial is within the competence of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The author presents the analysis of the manner the filter procedure was regulated by the Law No 134/2010, the Civil Procedure Code and the arguments for which it considers that the repeal of this procedure is not justified. The result of the study is reflected in the opinion according to which the filtering procedure had to be maintained, for the settlement of the reviews in the civil trial, by the supreme court. The filter procedure was first introduced in the civil processual legislation by the Government Emergency Ordinance No 58/2003. Those provisions introduced a new procedure of settlement of the review, irrespective of the court which settled the review, that of the admissibility in principle of the review, prior to the actual settlement of the application for review, which carried out the preliminary examination of the application for review. By the Law No 134/2010 the filter procedure has been regulated only in case the review was settled by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. By the Law No 310/2018, amending and supplementing the Civil Procedure Code, the filtering procedure has been repealed although, in the initial form, it was proposed to put the text of Article 493 of the Civil Procedure Code in agreement with the provisions of the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 839/2015, which has declared unconstitutional the phrase „or that the review is manifestly unfounded”. In this respect, the text of Article 493 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code should have been as follows: „In case the panel unanimously agrees that the review does not meet the formal requirements, that the grounds invoked and their development do not fall within those provided by Article 488, it shall cancel the review by a reasoned decision, pronounced without the summoning of the parties, which is not subject to any means of appeal. The decision shall be communicated to the parties”. Maintaining the filter procedure, in our opinion, contributes to decongesting of the supreme court to settle the reviews that do not meet the conditions for exercising this extraordinary means of appeal.