Considerații pe marginea Deciziei nr. 14/2020, pronunțată de Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție – Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii, referitoare la interpretarea și aplicarea unitară a dispozițiilor art. 472 și art. 491 din
Considerations on the Decision No 14/2020, pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the settlement of the appeal in the interest of the law, regarding the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 47

Summary/Abstract: The study analyzes the way in which the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the Panel for the settlement of the appeal in the interest of the law ruled on the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 472, Article 473 and Article 491 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the sense that the object of the incidental appeal or review, respectively the provoked one, may concern a part of the judgment of the court of first instance or of the court of appeal that was not challenged with a main appeal or review. In the opinion of the supreme court, it was considered that the provisions of Article 491 (1), Article 472 (2) and Article 473 of the Civil Procedure Code are not conditional on the filing of the incidental appeal/review or of the one provoked by the invocation of some grounds of appeal/review that concern only the provisions of the challenged judgment that were criticized by the main appeal/review, considering that the reasons of the incidental or provoked appeal/review may tend to annul the judgment challenged under any aspect that is of interest to the respondent declaring an incidental or provoked appeal/review. The main argument for adopting this interpretation is the premise of regulating the incidental appeal/review. The solution of the supreme court will be applied by the date of amendment, repeal or finding of the unconstitutionality of the legal provisions which have been the object of the interpretation. The authors present in this study a scientifically argued point of view on the matter of law on which the supreme court has ruled.

• Details
• Contents