Challenge for annulment

• Author: Ioana Dudas
• Position: Lecturer PhD
• Pages: 38-48

AGORA International Journal of Juridical Sciences, http://univagora.ro/jour/index.php/aijjs

ISSN 1843-570X, E-ISSN 2067-7677

No. 2 (2019), pp. 38 - 48

38

CHALLENGE FOR ANNULMENT

I. DUDAȘ

Ioana DUDAȘ

Lecturer PhD.

Faculty of Juridical and Administrative Sciences, Agora University of Oradea, Romania

*Correspondence: Ioana Dudaș, Agora University of Oradea, 8 Piaţa Tineretului St., Oradea,

Romania

Email: ioanadudas74@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT:

The challenge for annulment - an extraordinary legal remedy of withdrawal by which

the parties or the prosecutor can obtain the cancellation of a court ruling in the cases

exhaustively provided by law. It can be exercised for the purpose of withdrawing court

rulings (judgments) that were pronounced in disregard of certain procedural rules, not for

reasons of groundlessness. This article aims to highlight the object of the challenge for

annulment, the persons who may advance a challenge for annulment, the conditions imposed

by the law for the admissibility of such a challenge, and the possible solutions rendered by the

court.

KEYWORDS: challenge for annulment, categories of challenges, grounds and

conditions of admissibility, court solutions.

INTRODUCTION

Initially absent from the Civil Procedure Code of year 1865, the challenge for

annulment came into being and crystallized in the judicial practice of the time (1865-1948),

by using a legal fiction, known as “action for annulment”, which was based on the former

provisions of Art. 735 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1865. Noting the unequivocal

usefulness of the practice in question, the institution of the challenge for annulment “was

legally enshrined as an extraordinary legal remedy” through the amendment of the Civil

Procedure Code of 1865 by Law no. 18/1948.

The challenge for annulment was defined as “an extraordinary legal remedy of

withdrawal, which requires the very court that pronounced the ruling being challenged, in the

cases and under the conditions provided by law, to cancel its own ruling and to proceed to a

new trial”

1

.

Some authors have mentioned another feature specific to the institution, namely that it

is “non-suspensive of enforcement”

2

.

1

PhD Prof. Ion Deleanu, Tratat de procedură civilă (Civil Procedure Treatise), Servo Sat Publishing House,

2000, p. 440;

2

Florea Magureanu, Drept Procesual Civil Român (Romanian Civil Procedural Law), All Beck Publishing

House, 1998, pp. 436-437;