Post by account_disabled on Jan 3, 2024 20:54:29 GMT -6
Ago through the verification procedure provided by art. of the Civil Procedure Code. . Doctrinal and jurisprudential divergences in the meaning shown in section VI of this decision they started from the resolution of the issue according to which a complaint against a record of finding the contravention precisely in consideration of the particularities of such a request introduced within the legal term provided by art. para. from Government Ordinance no. but unmotivated could be canceled or not based on art. of the.
Civil Procedure Code for noncompliance with the provisions of art. lit. d from Country Email List the same code referring to the need to show the factual and legal grounds on which the request is based respectively the complaint. . The different opinions expressed in this regard were summarized in sections V and VI so there is no need to repeat them. . Analyzing the content of the same texts contained in Government Ordinance no. and for the following arguments the High Court of Cassation and Justice considers that in the absence of special provisions to the contrary the contraventional complaint similar to any summons request must include all the elements provided by art. of the Code of Civil Procedure including the factual reasoning otherwise the sanction of cancellation is applicable under the conditions provided by art. of the same code.
Therefore the term of days provided by art. para. from Government Ordinance no. calculated from the date of handing over or communication of the contravention report covers both the formulation of the contravention complaint and its motivation operations. . The circumstance that in the content of art. para. from Government Ordinance no. provides that the reasons for the appeal that can be exercised against the decision by which the contravention complaint was resolved is not mandatory the reasons for the appeal.
Civil Procedure Code for noncompliance with the provisions of art. lit. d from Country Email List the same code referring to the need to show the factual and legal grounds on which the request is based respectively the complaint. . The different opinions expressed in this regard were summarized in sections V and VI so there is no need to repeat them. . Analyzing the content of the same texts contained in Government Ordinance no. and for the following arguments the High Court of Cassation and Justice considers that in the absence of special provisions to the contrary the contraventional complaint similar to any summons request must include all the elements provided by art. of the Code of Civil Procedure including the factual reasoning otherwise the sanction of cancellation is applicable under the conditions provided by art. of the same code.
Therefore the term of days provided by art. para. from Government Ordinance no. calculated from the date of handing over or communication of the contravention report covers both the formulation of the contravention complaint and its motivation operations. . The circumstance that in the content of art. para. from Government Ordinance no. provides that the reasons for the appeal that can be exercised against the decision by which the contravention complaint was resolved is not mandatory the reasons for the appeal.