REPREZENTAREA CONVENŢIONALĂ A PERSOANELOR JURIDICE ÎN LITIGIILE DIN MATERIA DREPTULUI PROPRIETĂŢII INDUSTRIALE
REPRESENTATION OF LEGAL PERSONS IN FRONT OF CIVIL TRIBUNALS IN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS LITIGATION

Summary/Abstract: The article discusses the limits of the effects of Decision no. 2/2017, pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ), in the procedure for Questions of Interpretation of the Law, with regard to the respect of the law and of the principle of the supremacy of the law. Regarding the problems of interpretation and application of the HCCJ Decision no. 2/2017 in the practice of the HCCJ, civil section I, having in view the provisions of art. 519 and art. 521 par. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), the article raises the question if the HCCJ Decision no. 2/2017 also applies to industrial property rights litigation which does not concern the procedure of the appeal (in Romanian: ''contestaţie'') against the decision issued by the Board of Appeal of the State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM) (part I of the article). The article raises the question if the HCCJ's Decision no. 2/2017 respects the provisions of Law no. 514/2003 on the organisation and the exercise of the legal adviser (jurisconsult) profession (Law no. 514/2003). The article argues that the interpretation given by the HCCJ to the provisions of the GO no. 66/2000 on the organisation and the exercise of the IP attorney profession infringes the provisions of the Law no. 514/2003, because the legal advisers may represent ad litem legal persons only in the limited cases stipulated in the Law no. 514/2003 (part II of the article). Another question discussed in the article regards the compliance of the HCCJ Decision no. 2/2017 with the provisions of Law no. 51/1995 for the organisation and exercise of the lawyer profession (Law No. 51/1995). The systematic interpretation of the provisions of GO no. 66/2000 and the provisions of Law no. 51/1995 should be that the profession of lawyer can be exercised only in compliance with the Law no. 51/1995, which imposes on the lawyer the obligation to represent ad litem a legal person only on the basis of a written contract of legal assistance, concluded directly with the legal person which has the legal quality of ''party'' in the litigation. The the powers of representation ad litem and the honorary fee of the attorney should be specified in the written contract of legal assistance concluded between the lawyer and the respective party in litigation (part III of the article). The article raises further the question of the abrogation of the provisions of art. 28 par. (2) of GO no. 66/2000, as interpreted by the HCCJ in its Decision no. 2/2017, together with the provisions of Art. 20 par. (1) of GO no. 66/2000, in a way contrary to the Decision of the HCCJ no. 9/2016, in the procedure for Questions of Interpretation of the Law, as a result of the provisions of Art. 83 lit. k) of Law no. 76/2012 (Part IV of the article).

• Details
• Contents