Limits of powers to adjudicate. Legal basis. Applicability of HP Decision No 37/2019 and RIL Decision No 29/2020. Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

JURISPRUDENȚĂ COMENTATĂ ȘI ADNOTATĂ

Abstract

The constant position of the defendant was that the court should analyse the validity of the title strictly from the perspective of the legal grounds invoked by RNP - Romsilva - Suceava Forestry Directorate in the application, i.e. the res judicata nature of decision no. 147/2013, so that, although the plaintiff claims that the defendant deliberately created confusion regarding the phrase used by the legislator in art. 29 - "the church fund of the cult", this issue of interpretation of the internal rule, not being the subject of the judgment, is less relevant. Therefore, all of the applicant's submissions on appeal, arguing the difference between religious worship and the ecclesiastical substance of worship, go beyond the scope of the case and have not been considered. Nor is it necessary to assess the documents relied on by the parties as evidence of FBORB's ownership, strictly from the point of view of domestic law, in the light of the rulings of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Decision No 29/2020 of 9 November 2020, published in Official Gazette No 42 of 14 January 2021.

The Court of First Instance analysed the case on the basis relied on by the applicant, but in the light of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concluding that the penalty relied on by the applicant was not proportionate to the aim pursued. Therefore, the provisions of Article 22 of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply, as there is no legal basis not disputed or unknown to the applicant, which would lead to the annulment of the judgment and the retrial of the case.