Post by account_disabled on Dec 28, 2023 3:11:13 GMT
Athe inclusion of the specific structural parts of any legal norm hypothesis provision sanction operates with the distinction between complete and incomplete norms in their turn the incomplete provisions are classified into referral norms which are supplemented with norms in activity and norms in the blank which are supplemented with norms to appear. From the perspective of legislative technique art. para. from Law no. republished with subsequent amendments and additions is a referral norm which is why the provisions of.
Law norepublished with subsequent amendments and additions Country Email List previously cited. Against all these arguments the High Court of Cassation and Justice the Panel for resolving some legal issues finds that under the aspect of the first question the referral is inadmissible. . Regarding the second question it is found that all the admissibility conditions derived from art. of the Civil Procedure Code. was referred by a panel of judges from the Braov Court of Appeal which resolves an appeal in the matter of administrative litigation in a case with the object of annulling a decision of a local council issued on the basis of Art. para. from Law no. republished with subsequent.
Amendments and additions. As it follows from the jurisprudence of the courts in similar cases as it was exposed in point VI of this decision consistently the cases having as their object the annulment of a decision of a local council issued on the basis of art. para. from Law no. republished with subsequent amendments and additions were considered as administrative disputes and resolved as such. There is therefore no doubt that the referring court has jurisdiction to hear the case. It is also noted that the High Court of Cassation and Justice did not rule on the legal issue through case decisions the appeals in the matter of Law no. republished with.
Law norepublished with subsequent amendments and additions Country Email List previously cited. Against all these arguments the High Court of Cassation and Justice the Panel for resolving some legal issues finds that under the aspect of the first question the referral is inadmissible. . Regarding the second question it is found that all the admissibility conditions derived from art. of the Civil Procedure Code. was referred by a panel of judges from the Braov Court of Appeal which resolves an appeal in the matter of administrative litigation in a case with the object of annulling a decision of a local council issued on the basis of Art. para. from Law no. republished with subsequent.
Amendments and additions. As it follows from the jurisprudence of the courts in similar cases as it was exposed in point VI of this decision consistently the cases having as their object the annulment of a decision of a local council issued on the basis of art. para. from Law no. republished with subsequent amendments and additions were considered as administrative disputes and resolved as such. There is therefore no doubt that the referring court has jurisdiction to hear the case. It is also noted that the High Court of Cassation and Justice did not rule on the legal issue through case decisions the appeals in the matter of Law no. republished with.