We use cookies for statistical purposes.

  • 61 Unirii Boulevard, Bl. F3, Entrance 4, 2nd floor, Apt. 208, District 3, 030828, Bucharest
  • office(at)rolegal.com
  • (+40) 723.500.027

Proposing and completing evidence in civil proceedings

Individuals involved in civil proceedings in Romania need to follow a set of steps, one of which includes preparing, proposing and completing evidence. The requirements are described in this article by our Romanian lawyers.

For more information, as well as needed legal assistance, please do not hesitate to reach out to our attorneys.

Art. 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure, establishes that the one who makes a claim during the trial must prove it, except for the specific cases provided by law.

The provisions of art. 22 paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, regarding the role of the judge in finding out the truth, states that the court has its duty, by all legal means, to prevent any error in finding out the truth in question, based on the facts and the correct application of the law. a sound and lawful decision. To this end, with regard to the factual situation and the legal reasoning which the parties invoke, the judge is entitled to ask them to present explanations, orally or in writing, to put in their debate any factual or legal circumstances, even if they are not mentioned in the request or in the response, order the administration of the evidence they deem necessary, as well as other measures provided by law, even if the parties oppose it.

Relevant laws and provisions

In the application of art. 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to art. 254 paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the evidence is proposed, under the sanction of revocation, by the plaintiff by the request for summons, and by the defendant by the counterclaim, unless the law provides otherwise. They can also be proposed orally, in the specific cases provided by law.

The same text of law allows the completion of the evidence, only in the following situations:

  1. the need for proof results from the modification of the application;
  2. the need to administer the evidence arises from the judicial investigation and the party could not foresee it;
  3. the party contends to the court that, for duly justified reasons, he has not been able to propose the required evidence in time;
  4. the administration of the evidence does not lead to the postponement of the trial;
  5. there is the express agreement of all parties.

If a party is authorized to complete the evidence, the opposing party has the right to the contrary evidence only on the same aspect for which the evidence invoked was approved. The experts at our law firm in Romania can give you more details.

Administering evidence

In case of postponement of the case for completing the evidence, the party to whom the request was approved is obliged, under the sanction of forfeiture of the right to administer the approved evidence:

  • a) to submit the list of witnesses within 5 days from the approval of the evidence, when the evidence with witnesses is requested;
  • b) to submit certified copies of the invoked documents at least 5 days before the term set for the trial, if the documentary evidence has been approved;
  • c) to submit the interrogation within 5 days from the approval of this evidence, in the cases in which the interrogation must be communicated, according to the law;
  • d) to submit the proof of payment of the expenses necessary for the performance of the expertise, within 5 days from the appointment of the expert or within the term established by the court according to the provisions of art. 331 para. (2), if the proof of expertise has been approved.

According to art. 254 para. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the proposed evidence is not sufficient to fully clarify the process, the court will order the parties to complete the evidence.

At the same time, the court may, ex officio, question the parties’ need to administer other evidence, which it may order even if the parties object.

However, the text of art. 256 para. 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure clarifies that the court has the right and not the obligation to supplement the evidence, so that the parties cannot invoke in the appeals the court’s omission to order ex officio evidence that they did not propose and administer under the law.

It therefore appears that the litigants are responsible for proposing and administering the evidence in question.

In conclusion, although it is possible to complete the evidence even after the filing of the summons and the objection, it is recommended that the parties show the utmost foresight and caution in proposing and administering the evidence in order to find out the truth in question.

Contact our Romanian law firm if you need legal assistance in civil proceedings.