Conflict negativ de competenţă. Asigurare de dovezi. Litigiu aflat pe rolul curţii de apel. Hotărâre a guvernului prin care se stabileşte coridorul de expropriere şi valoarea despăgubirilor. Caracterul incidental al cererii de asigurare a dovezilor
Negative conflict of competence. Evidence insurance. Litigation pending before the Court of Appeal. Government decision establishing the expropriation corridor and the amount of compensation. Incidental nature of the request for providing evidence

Summary/Abstract: Article 360 para. (1) of the Civil Procedure Code regulates the competence to resolve the request for insurance of evidence: the request will go, before the trial, to the court in whose district the witness or object of the finding is located, and during the trial, to the court that judges the trial in the first instance. Therefore, the competence to resolve the request for proof of evidence differs depending on the time of making this request, depending on whether or not there is a registered trial on the merits of the claims (file on the merits) before the courts. The first hypothesis - before the trial - refers to the situation of insuring the evidence in the main way, respectively before starting the process in which the insured evidence will be used. The second hypothesis provided by the text of the law - during the trial - establishes the settlement competence in favor of the court that judges on the merits (at the first instance) the process in which the insured evidence will be used. In this case, the provision of evidence takes place incidentally, according to art. 30 para. (5) of the Civil Procedure Code, regardless of whether or not the trial is still pending before the first instance, with the application of the rule provided by art. 123 of the Civil Procedure Code. The request for an urgent establishing of the state of affairs made by the plaintiffs pursuant to art. 364 of the Civil procedure code is related to the value of the compensations to which the plaintiffs are entitled following the expropriation, compensations that are the subject of a claim in the case file on the role of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in which the third claim was disjointed, forming a new file that was declined to the Craiova Court of Appeal. The circumstance that, following the decline of competence, the case file had not yet been registered at the Craiova Court of Appeal, has no effect over the determination of competence to settle the proof insurance application.

• Details
• Contents