{"id":1572,"date":"2017-05-26T06:28:44","date_gmt":"2017-05-26T06:28:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chirita-law.com\/?p=975"},"modified":"2025-12-29T09:47:38","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T07:47:38","slug":"durata-suspendarii-element-ce-poate-impiedica-suspendarea-facultativa-a-cauzei-in-baza-art-413-alin-1-pct-2-c-proc-civila","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/durata-suspendarii-element-ce-poate-impiedica-suspendarea-facultativa-a-cauzei-in-baza-art-413-alin-1-pct-2-c-proc-civila\/","title":{"rendered":"Durata suspend\u0103rii – element ce poate \u00eempiedica suspendarea facultativ\u0103 a cauzei \u00een baza art. 413 alin. (1) pct. 2 C.proc.civil\u0103"},"content":{"rendered":"

Un text legal care temporizeaz\u0103 durata suspend\u0103rii facultative, \u00eel constituie dispozi\u0163iile art. 413 alin (3) Cod proc. civ., potrivit c\u0103rora instan\u0163a poate reveni asupra dispozi\u0163iei de suspendare dac\u0103 urm\u0103rirea penal\u0103 dureaz\u0103 mai mult de un an<\/em>.<\/p>\n

De\u015fi \u00een sine textul vizeaz\u0103 ipoteza \u00een care suspendarea facultativ\u0103 a fost anterior dispus\u0103 de c\u0103tre instan\u0163\u0103, \u00een temeiul art. 413 alin 1 pct. 2 C.pr.civil\u0103,\u00a0 totu\u015fi \u00een practica judiciar\u0103 recent\u0103, textul art. 413 alin 3 C.pr.civil\u0103, a fost invocat \u00een mai multe situa\u0163ii pentru a atrage respingerea de plano<\/em> a cererii de suspendare facultativ\u0103.<\/p>\n

\u00cen opinia acestor instan\u0163e, s-a pornit de la ideea c\u0103 instan\u0163a\u00a0are puterea de apreciere asupra utilit\u0103\u0163ii \u015fi oportunit\u0103\u0163ii<\/strong> m\u0103surii \u00een ansamblul raporturilor juridice dintre p\u0103r\u0163i, astfel \u00eenc\u00e2t m\u0103sura s\u0103 nu permit\u0103 concluzia unui abuz de drept procesual al p\u0103r\u0163ii care o invoc\u0103( 1). <\/em><\/p>\n

Merg\u00e2nd pe o linie mai concret\u0103, instan\u0163ele au dispus respingerea cererii de suspendare facultativ\u0103 \u00een temeiul art. 413 alin (1) pct. 2 C.proc.civ., pe motiv c\u0103 durata urm\u0103ririi penale, ce dep\u0103\u015fe\u015fte un termen de 1 an la data punerii \u00een discu\u0163ie a necesit\u0103\u0163ii suspend\u0103rii cauzei, nu mai poate fi util\u0103 cauzei raportat la caracterul \u00eendelungat al acesteia(2).<\/p>\n

\u00centr-o form\u0103 \u015fi mai judicioas\u0103(3), s-a re\u0163inut c\u0103 \u201c \u00een momentul \u00een care judec\u0103torul apreciaz\u0103 asupra oportunit\u0103\u0163ii suspend\u0103rii, acesta trebuie s\u0103 aib\u0103 \u00een vedere \u015fi momentul procesual penal, pentru a putea anticipa dac\u0103 se poate estima \u00een mod rezonabil, c\u0103 urm\u0103rirea penal\u0103 va fi finalizat\u0103 \u00een termen de 1 an. Dac\u0103 datele concrete din spe\u0163\u0103 nu sunt \u00een m\u0103sur\u0103 s\u0103 permit\u0103 o astfel de estimare, suspendarea nu \u00ee\u015fi mai poate atinge finalitatea, fiind pur \u015fi simplu o cauz\u0103 de tergiversare a judec\u0103rii cauzei \u00een civil<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Apreciem \u015fi noi c\u0103 o atare interpretare se impune \u00een cazurile \u00een care durata urm\u0103ririi penale dep\u0103\u015fe\u015fte cu mult termenul de 1 an la data punerii \u00een discu\u0163ie a necesit\u0103\u0163ii suspend\u0103rii cauzei, \u015fi este singura \u00een deplin\u0103 concordan\u0163\u0103 cu principiul dreptului de acces la justi\u0163ie, \u00eempiedic\u00e2nd instan\u0163ele de la bun \u00eenceput s\u0103 se ajung\u0103 \u00een situa\u0163ii \u00een care judecarea cauzei civile se prelunge\u015fte nejustificat \u015fi \u00eencalc\u0103 durata rezonabil\u0103 a unui proces civil.<\/p>\n

––––––––––––––––<\/p>\n

(1) Decizia nr. 699\/2014 pronun\u0163at\u0103 de \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie;<\/p>\n

(2) \u00cencheierea de \u015fedin\u0163\u0103 pronun\u0163at\u0103 de Judec\u0103toria Bistri\u0163a la data de\u00a010.11.2016;<\/p>\n

(3) \u00cencheierea de \u015fedin\u0163\u0103 pronun\u0163at\u0103 de Curtea de Apel Cluj la data de 28 martie 2017.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Un text legal care temporizeaz\u0103 durata suspend\u0103rii facultative, \u00eel constituie dispozi\u0163iile art. 413 alin (3) Cod proc. civ., potrivit c\u0103rora instan\u0163a poate reveni asupra dispozi\u0163iei de suspendare dac\u0103 urm\u0103rirea penal\u0103 dureaz\u0103 mai mult de un an. De\u015fi \u00een sine textul vizeaz\u0103 ipoteza \u00een care suspendarea facultativ\u0103 a fost anterior dispus\u0103 de c\u0103tre instan\u0163\u0103, \u00een temeiul […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consultanta-juridica-generala"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}