Post by account_disabled on Dec 31, 2023 2:26:34 GMT -5
Aof challenging the execution the cancellation of the harmful execution acts. . The Presidents of the two Chambers of the Parliament and the Peoples Advocate did not communicate their views on the exception of unconstitutionality. COURT examining the referral conclusion the Governments point of view the report drawn up by the judgerapporteur the written notes submitted the arguments of the present parties the prosecutors conclusions the criticized legal provisions related to the provisions of the Constitution as well as Law no. notes the following.
The Constitutional Court was legally notified and is competent Country Email List according to the provisions of art. lit. d from the Constitution as well as from art. paragraph of art. and of Law no. to resolve the exception of unconstitutionality. . The object of the exception of unconstitutionality as it results from the conclusion of referral is represented by the provisions of art. para. of the Code of Civil Procedure to the extent that it is interpreted that a challenge to execution formulated by a nonpursuing creditor is admissible only to the extent that he has previously intervened in the forced execution with respect to which he formulates the challenge to execution . The provisions of art. para. from the Code of.
Civil Procedure republished in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. of April have the following content Nonpursuing creditors have the right to intervene in the execution carried out by other creditors in order to take part in the execution or in the distribution of the amounts obtained from the enforced pursuit of the debtors assets. . In the opinion of the author of the exception ofviolate the constitutional provisions of art. regarding free access to justice. . Examining the exception of unconstitutionality the Court observes that the provisions of art. of the.
The Constitutional Court was legally notified and is competent Country Email List according to the provisions of art. lit. d from the Constitution as well as from art. paragraph of art. and of Law no. to resolve the exception of unconstitutionality. . The object of the exception of unconstitutionality as it results from the conclusion of referral is represented by the provisions of art. para. of the Code of Civil Procedure to the extent that it is interpreted that a challenge to execution formulated by a nonpursuing creditor is admissible only to the extent that he has previously intervened in the forced execution with respect to which he formulates the challenge to execution . The provisions of art. para. from the Code of.
Civil Procedure republished in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. of April have the following content Nonpursuing creditors have the right to intervene in the execution carried out by other creditors in order to take part in the execution or in the distribution of the amounts obtained from the enforced pursuit of the debtors assets. . In the opinion of the author of the exception ofviolate the constitutional provisions of art. regarding free access to justice. . Examining the exception of unconstitutionality the Court observes that the provisions of art. of the.