About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

15 AGORA Int'l J. Jurid. Sci. 1 (2021)

handle is hein.journals/agoraijjs2021 and id is 1 raw text is: AGORA International Journal of Juridical Sciences, http://univagoraro/ir/indexphD/aiiis ISSN 1843-570X, E-ISSN 2067-7677 No. 1 (2021), pp. 1 - 4 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE AMENDMENTS BROUGHT BY LAW 310/2018 REGARDING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE CONCLUSION OF REJECTION OF THE INTERVENTION REQUEST I.-C. CHEBELEU, M. CHEBELEU, R.-V. BACTER Chebeleu Ioana Camelia University of Oradea, Faculty of Environmental Protection, 26 Gen. Magheru St email: chebeleuioanacamelia@yahoo.com Chebeleu Mircea University of Oradea, Faculty of Environmental Protection, 26 Gen. Magheru St e-mail: chebeleumircea@yahoo.com.uk Bacter Ramona Vasilica University of Oradea, Faculty of Environmental Protection, 26 Gen. Magheru St ABSTRACT The amendments brought by Law 310/2018 for the amendment and completion of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the appeal against the conclusion of rejection of the interventionrequest are likely to raise some issues of practical application.Although, in the statement of reasonswhich was the basis for the elaboration of the above-mentioned law, reference is made to the need to correlate the Civil Procedure Codewith the Decisions of the Constitutional Court, it should be noted that, although significantly amended, the provisions of art.64 par.3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, have not been the subject ofdecisions to establish somepossible unconstitutionalities. KEY WORDS: admissibility, intervention, expediency INTRODUCTION On 12/21/2018, entered into force Law no. 310/2018 for amending and supplementing Law no. 134/2010 on the Civil ProcedureCode, as well as for amending and supplementing other normative acts. [1,2] In the statement of reasons that formed the basis of the aforementioned law, reference is made to the need to reconcile the texts of the law in force with the Decisions of the Constitutional Court no. 473/2013, no. 462/2014, no. 558/2014, no. 485/2015, no. 839/2015, no. 866/2015 and no. 321/2017. [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Given that the decisions of unconstitutionality listed above didnot target the provisions of art. 64 paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, clearly results that the amendment of these texts was generated rather by the expediency of solving cases by blocking situations encountered in practice to delay the causes by formulating some interventionrequests. MATERIAL AND METHOD The materials used in writing this paper consist of normative acts, web pages, CCR jurisprudence.The methods used are legal, namely the formal method, the historical method, the comparative method, the logical and sociological method, the analytical method.The use of these methods had the role of performing a systematic analysis of the information from the studied sources in order to elaborate the points of view and the conclusions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most