Descriere
The authors analyze Decision no. 34/2024, pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for resolving a question of law, by which the referral of the Mureș Tribunal – Civil Section was admitted.
In this sense, the provisions of art. 452 compared to those of art. 470 C.proc.civ., as interpreted by Decision no. 9 of March 30, 2020, pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for resolving the appeal in the interest of the law, is interpreted as meaning that, in the event that court costs were requested before the first instance, but proof of their payment was not provided by the date of closing the debates on the merits of the case, this proof can be provided, through new documents, in the appeal filed against the decision rejecting the request for court costs. Contrary to the adopted solution, the authors demonstrate that the notification was inadmissible, and on the merits they criticize the Supreme Court’s decision, the provisions analyzed being clear, the court costs must be requested for each stage separately.
