Post by account_disabled on Dec 31, 2023 9:34:12 GMT
Athe amended request to the defendant in order to formulate the response which under penalty of forfeiture will be submitted with at least days before the fixed term. Therefore the defendant has at his disposal a new term in which to formulate a new objection under the conditions in which the plaintiff has modified his request for summons. The Court also notes that according to art. para. only to the extent that the defendant is present and declares that he does not want the trial to be postponed in order to become aware of the amended request within the deadline and file a response no deadline is granted.
Also according to the provisions of art. para. of the Constitution Country Email List the competence of the courts and the court procedure are those provided only by law. The legislator has a wide margin of appreciation in this field and used this margin of appreciation to configure the process in conditions that would ensure its expediency but also respect for the procedural rights of the parties.
Therefore the Court finds that the criticized legal provisions do not violate the provisions of art. para. art. para. nor those of art. para. the authors criticism of the unconstitutionality exception not being upheld. For the reasons stated above under art. lit. d and of art. para. of the Constitution as well as of art. of art. paragraph lit. Ad and of art. of Law no. with unanimity of votes law DECIDE Rejects as unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality raised by Nicolae Gabriel Zanfir in File no. . of the th District Court of Bucharest Second Civil Section and finds that the provisions of art. of the Civil Procedure Code are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated. Definitive and generally binding. The decision is communicated.
Also according to the provisions of art. para. of the Constitution Country Email List the competence of the courts and the court procedure are those provided only by law. The legislator has a wide margin of appreciation in this field and used this margin of appreciation to configure the process in conditions that would ensure its expediency but also respect for the procedural rights of the parties.
Therefore the Court finds that the criticized legal provisions do not violate the provisions of art. para. art. para. nor those of art. para. the authors criticism of the unconstitutionality exception not being upheld. For the reasons stated above under art. lit. d and of art. para. of the Constitution as well as of art. of art. paragraph lit. Ad and of art. of Law no. with unanimity of votes law DECIDE Rejects as unfounded the exception of unconstitutionality raised by Nicolae Gabriel Zanfir in File no. . of the th District Court of Bucharest Second Civil Section and finds that the provisions of art. of the Civil Procedure Code are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated. Definitive and generally binding. The decision is communicated.