Post by account_disabled on Dec 28, 2023 2:50:43 GMT
Ato the resolution of the High Court of Cassation and Justice through the present referral. It is noted that the first instance responding to the defendants defense formulated by counter considered that the property right was not born by virtue of the law on the date of entry into force of Law no. regarding the rightsconstitutive effect of the registration in the land register provided for by Decreelaw no. for the unification of provisions regarding land records. For this reason he considered that the land in.
Dispute was not at the time of issuing the challenged administrative act in Country Email List in the property of the administrativeterritorial unit. From the grounds of appeal it does not appear that the appellant would have criticized the assessment of the first court under this aspect and in any case it is certain that the previously revealed aspects were not subject to the resolution of the High Court of Cassation and Justice as being part of the legal issue that is requested to be clarified which is why they cannot be divided in this framework given the limits of the pronouncement of the preliminary decision provided for by art. of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus the first question could not be answered only on.
The basis of a legislative technical argument without clarifying all the aspects that concern the application of the law over time. Moreover the aspect revealed by the first question with the reasoning from the support of the appellant who requested the referral to the High Court of Cassation and Justice implies the application not even the interpretation of the provisions of Law no. for the elaboration of normative acts republished with subsequent amendments and additions. In accordance with art. para. of this law in order to avoid parallelism In the legislative process it is prohibited to establish the same regulations in several articles.
Dispute was not at the time of issuing the challenged administrative act in Country Email List in the property of the administrativeterritorial unit. From the grounds of appeal it does not appear that the appellant would have criticized the assessment of the first court under this aspect and in any case it is certain that the previously revealed aspects were not subject to the resolution of the High Court of Cassation and Justice as being part of the legal issue that is requested to be clarified which is why they cannot be divided in this framework given the limits of the pronouncement of the preliminary decision provided for by art. of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus the first question could not be answered only on.
The basis of a legislative technical argument without clarifying all the aspects that concern the application of the law over time. Moreover the aspect revealed by the first question with the reasoning from the support of the appellant who requested the referral to the High Court of Cassation and Justice implies the application not even the interpretation of the provisions of Law no. for the elaboration of normative acts republished with subsequent amendments and additions. In accordance with art. para. of this law in order to avoid parallelism In the legislative process it is prohibited to establish the same regulations in several articles.