ro fr
universul juridic magazin

Several re

During the various conferences organized for the purpose of debating on the regulations of the New Code of civil procedure, but also in the practice, questions have often been raised whose manner of settlement by certain courts leads to the idea that sometimes its provisions are not carefully examined, correlated with another provisions, that the intent of the legislator is not asked, that the texts are not given a historical, systematic, logic interpretation, that is for the purpose of being applied within a conception announced from the preliminary title. The contradictory case law generates the feeling of a deficient operation of justice. There are laudable efforts, materialized in professional meetings of the judges, in order to reach to some convergent opinions in relation to the enforcement of the new civil procedure regulations. Nevertheless, the opinions resulted from such meetings, materialized in “minutes”, even if concrete on many occasions, cannot replace the legal mechanisms related to the unification of the case law. We tried to give an answer to certain problems which were discussed during the professional meetings of the judges, but also regarding other issues in relation to which we noted that there is a certain potential of non-unitary practice. We approached topics regarding: the timely enforcement of the New Code of civil procedure and of certain provisions of the related laws; the procedural situation of the transferor and of his successors (art. 39 of the NCCP); the forced introduction in the case, ex officio, of other persons, in the administrative contentious claims (art. 78, art. 79 NCCP); the institution of the judicial trusteeship, especially in the cases in which the service by publication is disposed; the procedure of regulation of the sue petition, but also of the means of appeal for reformation; the amendment and the supplement of the sue petition; the suspension of judgment; the procedure of the registration of the rights acquired in virtue of the adverse possession; the substantiation of the court order within the legal deadline and the requirement of the right to a fair trial, within due and foreseeable time; the second appeal grounded on the provisions of art. 461 para. (2) of the NCCP.