Appellant's Non-Appearance: Limits on Case Adjournment (Cassation No. 16782/2025)

The management of hearings and the non-appearance of parties are crucial in civil proceedings. Ordinance No. 16782 of the Court of Cassation, dated June 23, 2025, clarifies the application of Article 348, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.) regarding the adjournment of appeals. It is essential to understand the limits of absence in second-instance judgments, applicable to ordinary and labor proceedings.

Art. 348, paragraph 2, c.p.c.: Adjournment Only to the First Hearing

Article 348, paragraph 2, c.p.c. states that "If the appellant does not appear at the first hearing... the judge shall order the adjournment of the case to another hearing". This rule ensures the right to be heard (contradictory principle). However, the adjournment is limited to the "first hearing". A subsequent absence, once the proceedings have commenced, has different implications.

The Case and the Cassation's Decision

Ordinance No. 16782/2025 arose from a dispute between D. S. and L. P. The incidental appellant did not appear at the last hearing on appeal. However, the proceedings had already been extensively handled, including an expert technical assessment (CTU) and the submission of its report. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, reiterating a fundamental principle. Here is the summary:

In matters of appeals, Article 348, paragraph 2, c.p.c. – also applicable to disputes subject to labor proceedings – provides that the judge shall adjourn the case only if the appellant's non-appearance occurs at the first hearing. Therefore, it does not apply where the proceedings have already progressed, even if only procedurally. (In this case, the S.C. denied the existence of the prerequisites for the aforementioned adjournment, given that the incidental appellant had only failed to appear at the last hearing, when the proceedings had already been extensively handled, including an expert technical assessment and the submission of its report).

The ruling clarifies that adjournment is not automatic. The rule protects the appellant only for absence at the first hearing. After significant steps (e.g., expert assessment), a subsequent non-appearance does not invoke the same protection. This interpretation prevents unjustified delays and promotes the swiftness of proceedings (Art. 111 of the Constitution, Art. 6 of the ECHR). The principle extends to labor proceedings.

Practical Implications

The consequences of this Ordinance are significant for anyone involved in an appeal proceeding. Key points:

• First Hearing: Absence justifies an adjournment only if it occurs at the first hearing.
• Progress of Proceedings: After commencement (e.g., expert assessment), subsequent absence does not entitle the party to an adjournment.
• Diligence: Maintain high attention at every stage of the appeal.
• Labor Proceedings: The rule also applies to labor cases.

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 16782 of June 23, 2025, by the Court of Cassation, is a definitive statement on the interpretation of Article 348, paragraph 2, c.p.c. The emphasis on the "first hearing" as the sole occasion for adjournment in case of non-appearance is a call to responsibility for parties and their legal representatives. Understanding and respecting these limits is crucial for effective management of defense strategies, ensuring more certain and predictable justice.