Procedural issues regarding the possibility of challenging the suspension of a case on appeal

A recent decision issued by the High Court of Cassation addressed the possibility of challenging the suspension (stay) of a case before a court of last resort.

The suspension refers to a temporary interruption of the case which may occur because of one of several reasons. These are situations identified by the law; for example, one of the parties dies or one of the parties becomes subject to insolvency proceedings. Or if the resolution of the pending case depends on the resolution in another case, then the dependent case will be suspended until the resolution of the controlling case becomes final.

The suspension of the case by the court means that the case will not proceed until the cause that triggered the suspension is completed.

The High Court of Cassation’s decision addresses situations in which a case is suspended by an appeal court, and the appeal is the last opportunity to challenge the decision of a lower court.

The decision allows an appeal from the ruling suspending the case even if the case could not be further appealed on the merits.

The clarification was necessary because some courts ruled that when a decision on the merits of the case was final, the ruling suspending the case could not be appealed either.

No. 2/30.01.2017, published in the Official Gazette no. 175/10.03.2017.

Amendments to Civil Procedure Code and other legal provisions

We present below only a few OF THE most important of these amendments:

a. Amendments to Civil Procedure Code

  1. In arbitration actions, the amendment clarifies that a judgement of an appeal court ruling on a cancellation action filed against the original judgement of the arbitral tribunal (arbitration panel) may be challenged by either party by way of further appeal;
  2. In respect of the executory titles (executions), the amendment provides that an executory document which is not notarized must be registered with a public registry to serve its purpose if other requirements are met;
  3. In respect of the enforcement against goods which are found in departments of different appeal courts, an amendment has clarified that the jurisdiction of the bailiff (for any of the bailiffs in one of these departments) is applicable also to immovable assets, not only to movable assets;
  4. In respect of seizure of accounts, an amendment changes the jurisdiction of the bailiff providing that the jurisdiction belongs only to the bailiff in the department of the appeal court with jurisdiction over the debtor’s headquarters; as such, the amendment excludes the headquarters of the seized party from the jurisdiction of the bailiff, which was an option until now.
  5. Other amendments have as subject matter procedural aspects regarding the request for approving an enforcement, the suspension of an enforcement, and appeal against the rulings of the court in respect of an enforcement.

b. Amendments to Law no. 36/1995 governing the activity of public notaries:

The amendment provides that the notarized agreement between the parents in connection with a divorce having as subject matter aspects regarding the children is an executory title, meaning that it may be enforced directly, without filing a claim in court.

These amendments to the Civil Procedure Code and other provisions were enacted by Law no. 17/17.03.2017 (published in the Official Gazette no. 196/21.03.2017) for approving GEO 1/2016.

2016 - All rights reserved Stratulat Albulescu - Attorneys at law