Au instanțele prerogativa de a acorda ajutor public judiciar în privința cauțiunii prevăzute de art. 719 alin. (7) din Codul de procedură civilă, după pronunțarea de către Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului a deciziei din Cauza S.C. ECO INVEST S.R
Do the courts have the prerogative to grant public judicial aid regarding the bail provided by Article 719 (7) of the Civil Procedure Code, after the European Court of Human Rights pronounced a decision in the Case S.C. ECO INVEST S.R.L.

Summary/Abstract: In this study, the author analyzes the possibility of granting the public judicial aid, according to the national legislation and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, regarding the bail necessary to be paid in the cases regarding the provisional suspension of enforcement, according to Article 719 (7) of the Civil Procedure Code. Regarding the situation prior to pronouncing the decision in the Case S.C. ECO INVEST S.R.L. and Ilie Bolmadar versus Romania, special attention is paid to the way of transposing the Directive of the Council of the European Union 2003/8/EC to improve the access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing some minimum common rules relating to the legal aid for such disputes, as well as the jurisprudential reversal of the Case Micallef versus Malta. At the same time, there are emphasized the relevant provisions of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 51/2008 on judicial public aid in civil matters. Regarding the subsequent national legal order, the author emphasizes the importance that the European Court of Human Rights has given to the case law invoked by the Government, proof of the compliance with the autonomy of the legal systems of the signatory states. At the same time, it is explained why in the decision in Case S.C. ECO INVEST S.R.L. and Ilie Bolmadar versus Romania the Court did not verify the criteria provided in the Case Micallef versus Malta, in order to analyze the incidence of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the provisional measure provided by Article 403 paragraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1865. In order to retain the relative effect of the decision in the Case S.C. ECO INVEST S.R.L. and Ilie Bolmadar against Romania, it is considered Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention. The solution of the inadmissibility of the requests for public judicial aid regarding the bail provided by Article 719 (7) of the Civil Procedure Code is the result of a logical argumentation, which highlights the impossibility of the national courts to establish a higher degree of protection regarding the right to a fair trial, compared to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given the principle of independence of judges and their submission only to the law, the author appreciates the need for an appeal in the interest of the law, which will have the effect of unifying the case law.

• Details
• Contents