Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica, Vol 12, No 1 (2016)

Abstract

In this paper I have analysed the answers which the following questions might receive: Can the Court invested with solving a motion to change venue decide on solving a trial already solved? Which could be the consequences of crediting the idea that the answer is in the affirmative in any situation, without any distinction?

The law issue submitted to the analysis was generated by the circumstance that the civil Courts when they are invested with solving a case whose venue changing is requested, either decide to suspend the case until the motion to change venue is solved, or give a hearing date in order to solve this request.

In our opinion, it is necessary an intervention of the legislator, as in practice, art. 145, paragraph  (2), Civil Procedure Code was interpreted differently.