IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critical Considerations On Decision No. 7/2016 Of The High Court Of Cassation And Justice,Regarding The Interpretation And Application Of Art. 127 Par. 1 And 3 Code Of Civil Procedure


  • Claudia ROSU

    (Prof. PhD. habil. - Faculty of Law, West University Timisoara, ROMANIA.)


The article critically analyzes the solutions taken into consideration by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in the Decision no. 7/2016, which admitted the appeal on points of the law concerning the interpretation and application of art. 127 par. (1) and (3) Code of Civil Procedure and determined that the phrase "the court of operation" should be interpreted restrictively, in the sense that it refers to the situation where the judge actually operates in the court that is competent to adjudicate on the request of the proceedings at first instance. In our opinion, the correct interpretation is the extensive one, which refers to judges of all procedural cycles of judgment, whatever the court is in which they operate, as long as they belong to the district court of appeal in whose jurisdiction the court belongs, which would have usually had the resolving power. Also, the Supreme Court has established that art. 127 par. (1) and (3) Code of Civil Procedure is to be interpreted in terms of the concept of "registrar" in the sense that it is also applicable in the case of claimants belonging to the auxiliary personnel (registrar) in the prosecutors' offices courts. On the contrary, we believe that the restrictive view is correct, which refers only to those registrars who actually operate in the court that settles the case.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia ROSU, 2017. "Critical Considerations On Decision No. 7/2016 Of The High Court Of Cassation And Justice,Regarding The Interpretation And Application Of Art. 127 Par. 1 And 3 Code Of Civil Procedure," Curentul Juridic, The Juridical Current, Le Courant Juridique, Petru Maior University, Faculty of Economics Law and Administrative Sciences and Pro Iure Foundation, vol. 68, pages 136-153, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:pmu:cjurid:v:68:y:2017:p:136-153

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    optional jurisdiction; judge at first instance; registrar of courts at the prosecutors' offices;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pmu:cjurid:v:68:y:2017:p:136-153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bogdan Voaidas (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.