Principles of uniqueness and lawfulness of the means of challenge. Simultaneous resolution of the challenge to the title and the challenge to enforcement. Different means of challenge. Request for clarification of the judgment with regard to stating the a

JURISPRUDENŢĂ COMENTATĂ ŞI ADNOTATĂ

Abstract

The appellants referred to the first court a challenge to the enforcement itself, subject to the means of challenge provided for in Article 718(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, i.e. only to appeal, as well as a challenge to the meaning, scope and application of the enforceable title consisting of a judgment, subject to the same means of challenge as the judgment to be enforced, including the second appeal.

In its decision on the appeal, the Court indicated the right to file a second appeal, as a whole, for the entire judgment, and the appellants requested that this be clarified by adding a statement to the effect that the right to file a second appeal relates only to the challenge to the enforceable title.

The enacting terms of the decision to solve the appeal lodged in the two types of appeal contains no doubtful wording, is sufficiently clear and does not need to be clarified. By supplementing it as requested by the appellants, the court would change the reasoning used in drawing up and pronouncing the minutes. The clarification of the decision on appeal in the sense sought by the appellants would render the provisions of Article 460(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which the court considered when indicating the second appeal for the entire judgment.

Irrespective of the express wording of the decision, it is for the court to ascertain on the second appeal whether or not this means of challenge is available to the appellant. However, moreover, the question of the admissibility of the second appeal may be raised by the appellants before the second appeal court without necessarily obtaining clarification of the decision in the sense discussed.