DIFICULTĂŢI ÎN APLICAREA ART. 906, ART. 910-913 DIN CODUL DE PROCEDURĂ CIVILĂ, RELATIV LA DETERMINAREA INSTANŢEI DE EXECUTARE ŞI A CADRULUI PROCESUAL
DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING ART. 906, ART. 910-913 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RELATIVE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT OF EXECUTION AND OF THE PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK

Summary/Abstract: It might seem that there is a synonymous relationship between the notion: “guardianship court” and the notion: “family and minors”, noticing that the dispositions of the Civil Code use the first terminology (guardianship and family court within the meaning of Law no. 71/2011), while the dispositions of Law no. 304/2004 on the organization of the judiciary use the second terminology, both notions are regarding the same competences of positive law. Ultimately, regardless of the name - guardianship court, guardianship and family court, courts, sections, panels for minors and family - the functions of judgment, confer a specialized material competence, determinable mainly by the application of two criterias: personal criterion, regarding the minority age and the family connection, respectively the mixed criterion, personal and patrimonial deriving from the need to protect the rights of the vulnerable person, layered in particular by the secondary legislation. We conclude in favor of the distinction in interpretation between common law competences and specialized competences whenever the examined matter involves the forced execution of some court decisions or other executory titles regarding minors, taking into account art. 910 correlated with art. 94 pt. 1, lit. a), art. 114 Code of Civil Procedure, reported to art. 107, art. 265 Civil Code and art. 39 para. 2 of Law no. 304/2004. Not only that the enforcement court will be, as the case may require, the common law enforcement court or the specialized law enforcement court, family and juvenile court, but the procedures will also be different. If art. 910 - 913 may borrow norms from the common dispositions of art. 906 Code of Civil Procedure, the latter do not borrow any norm from the former. On this logical line of establishing the competent court of enforcement, we will discover other difficulties arising from the outline of the procedural framework and the interpretation of normative terms, proposing interpretative solutions that support both the legal and fair status of regulated judicial proceedings.

• Details
• Contents