Mehmetoglu’s files related to Mamaia Resort Codes will be tried together! (the moment)

  • The decision to link the two cases was made in the file 1026/118/2022, a case in which Mehmetoglu is the plaintiff and the defendant Constana municipality through the mayor, and the subject of the file is “cancellation of the contract”.

The first civil division of the Constana court decided jointly to rule on the files related to the land in the area of ​​the Royal Palace of Mamaia (Club Castle) and the Mamaia Casino, the well-known symbols of the Mamaia resort, owned by the private company. Mehmetoglu.

More precisely, it is about, on the one hand, the file opened by the Roman Waters company to claim the land which it says belongs to the Romanian state, according to the constitution – it is about the escarpment or the shore of the Romanian coast but also about the file that Mehmetoglu has opened in turn to the municipality in order to cancel the contract that It acquired the land.

The decision to link the two cases was made in the file 1026/118/2022, a case in which Mehmetoglu is the plaintiff and the defendant Constana municipality through the mayor, and the subject of the file is “cancellation of the contract”.

At the same time, the second file bears the reference number 7474/118/2017 and represents a claim for the land that has been opened since 2017 by ANAR – ABADL.

The first civil section decided in file 1026/118/2022 to include the cases, and here is the minutes of the session:

“[Instanța] Acknowledges the connection exception. Orders that this case be attached to File No. 7474/118/2017 pending in the Constana Court, First Civil Division, Suite F14, with a deadline of 09/21/2022. With the appeal with the fund”

We remind you, in this litigation, to cancel the contract of sale and purchase concluded between the municipality and the private company, according to which Mehmetoglu became the owner of the land in the area of ​​the Royal Palace of Mamaia (Club Castel) and the Mamaia Casino, which are known as the Mamaia resort codes.

Now, the judges have admitted the exception to the call invoked by representatives of the private company.

As we indicated in previous editions, in this file, according to the conclusion of the meeting on February 16, 2022, a document quoted on the National Jurisprudence Portal, showing that the representatives of the company “requested a stay of settlement on the case until the settlement of the case registered before the Constana Court – First Civil Division on 16.02.2022.” , for the purpose of proving the absolute nullity of the contract of sale and purchase certified by BNPA ####### ##### and ######## ############ under No. 435 / 28.02 2007, as amended by four subsequent additions, as a result of the restoration of the parties to their previous state.”

Link to refunds file

And this request made by the private company in the new trial was formulated, according to the source, “considering that by criminal judgment No. ###/F/10.07.2017 issued by the Court of Appeal in Bucharest in File No. 6536/2/2008 (No., Constanta return file) amended and finalized on 02.07.2019 in accordance with Criminal Decision No. 32/07.02.2019 of the International Criminal Court in which the Court ordered the partial rescission of Decisions No. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # The Romanian State, in its capacity as the MFP, as its representative, shall take the necessary steps to acquire such property By decision No. 32/2019, the International Criminal Court of Civil Rights held that the area of ​​land that was designated as the private property of the municipality of Constana based on two conclusions of OCPI Constanţa and subsequently sold on the basis of sales and purchase contracts certified by No. 435/2007 and No. 842/2007 Part of the Black Sea shore is public property of the state and that the municipality of Constanta does not own any public or private ownership of this area of ​​land.”

Furthermore, Mehmetoglu’s lawyers showed “HCL no. 566/2004 seized in HCL No. 109/2005 and supplemented by HCL no. 540/2005 legally null and void under the terms of the aforementioned primary legislation regarding the mention of this area as part of an inventory.” Assets owned by the private property of the municipality of Constanta.

“Requests to cancel his contract,” was recorded at the closing session of the Constanta Court, in the process opened by ABADL to claim the disputed land.

We explain that on February 16, 2022 – which Mehmetoglu’s lawyers mentioned in the request to suspend the operation – the Constanta court registered the file with the code number 1026/118/2022, as the private company filed a lawsuit against the Constanta municipality. Through first, in a file with the subject of “dissolution”.

Now, it remains to be seen what the decision of the Constanta court will be at the end of the process with regard to the suit of claim promoted by Apele Române.

Documentary source: National Jurisprudence Portal – rejust.ro

Determine:

Law 190 of 2018, in Article 7, states that journalistic activity is exempt from certain provisions of the GDPR, if a balance is maintained between freedom of expression and protection of personal data.

The information in this article is of public interest and is obtained from open public sources.

Leave a Comment