Poate fi justificată urgenţa în conservarea stării lucrărilor de execuţie la o unitate hotelieră pe calea procedurii asigurării probelor?
Can the urgency of preserving the state of the works on a hotel establishment be justified by the evidence procedure?

Summary/Abstract: Built on a Q&A model, this article analyzes whether an application for securing evidence can in practice operate as a truly effective means of preserving the factual condition of defective works executed by a contractor at a hotel. The article answers several questions: does the need to remedy non compliant works, in order to prevent the suspension of the hotel’s activity, justify the urgency of granting an application for securing evidence? Can the need for repair works to be carried out by a different contractor itself constitute a ground justifying urgency? Must the urgency requirement relate strictly to the evidence and not to the litigant parties? Can the time gap between the opening of the hotel with serious defects and the filing of the application dilute – or even extinguish – the urgency of the request? Could the loss the hotel would incur by operating with defects contribute to justifying urgency? Is ascertainment of facts by the bailiff a viable alternative to securing evidence applications in construction matters? Is the securing evidence procedure subsidiary to the bailiff’s ascertainment? The proposed answer rests on a systematic case law survey and a contextual reading of Article 359 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, complemented by the author’s practical experience, to delineate operational criteria for urgency: the perishability of physical traces, the imminence of technical interventions liable to alter the relevant factual situation, and the presence of an autonomous administrative sanction risk, where the severity of any sanction is not decisive, though it may reinforce urgency. The analysis applies a standard of reasonable likelihood (rather than absolute certainty) that the evidence may disappear or become difficult to adduce, and assesses the significance of the time lag between the hotel’s opening and the filing of the application in light of the moment the defects were discovered and the applicant’s diligence.

• Details
• Contents