3. Contestație în anulare. Imposibilitatea invocării incompatibilității judecătorului pe calea motivului prevăzut de dispozițiile art. 317 alin. (1) pct. 2 C. pr. civ. 1865
3. Appeal for annulment. The impossibility of invoking the judge’s incompatibility based upon the reason provided in art. 317 para. (1) item 2 of the Code of civil procedure of 1865

Summary/Abstract: 1. The reason of the appeal for annulment provided in art. 317 para. (1) item 2 of the Code of civil procedure of 1865 strictly refers to the jurisdiction of the courts, as it is regulated in Book I (jurisdiction of the courts of law), Title I (material jurisdiction) and Title II (territorial jurisdiction), and to the breach of the public order provisions regarding the jurisdiction, in application of the provisions of art. 158 and art. 159. This reason of appeal for annulment deals with the situation in which the decision was ruled by judges in breach of the public order provisions regarding the general jurisdiction, the exclusive material jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction of the courts, and not the possible non-observance of the provisions regarding the composition of the panel of judges. The fact that an incompatible judge would have sat on the panel depended on the composition of the respective panel of judges, and not on the power of the courts and thus, the reason provided in art. 317 para. (1) item 2 cannot be used for invoking the breach of the incompatibility rules, as well as in case of breach of the rules on the composition and incorporation of the court, since these rules, regardless of the fact that they are placed by the lawmaker in Book I of the Code (jurisdiction of the courts), refer to the organization of justice, and are not rules of jurisdiction. 2. As the text of art. 318 of the Code of civil procedure of 1865 exclusively deals with those situations in which important material data of the case are confounded or omitted, the concept of “clerical error” shall not be extensively interpreted and thus, in this way, the possible errors or judgment, respectively of assessment of evidence, of interpretation of the facts or of reinterpretation and enforcement of the incidental legal provisions cannot be corrected. The correction of an error of judgment by an extraordinary withdrawal remedy shall be equivalent to the reopening of a finally settled judgment and to the violation of the legal relations safety. Consequently, the issues invoked in the appeal for annulment, regarding the manner of updating compensation, by reference to the evidence produced and to the applicable legal provisions, to the value of the estate granted for compensation, to the possibility of providing any remedies as compensation grants, to the wrongful enforcement of the legal provisions, cannot be deemed as “clerical errors” to justify the withdrawal of the decision.

• Details
• Contents