Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Alternative general jurisdiction in the Republic of Moldova and Romania based on the parties’ restricted alternative procedural rights. – 3. General contractual jurisdiction in the Republic of Moldova and Romania based on the full alternative procedural law of the parties. – 4. The limits of exercising the alternative procedural right of the general jurisdiction in the Republic of Moldova and Romania. – 5. Result and conclusion
Background: The legal institution that delimits the powers of judicial bodies to resolve legal cases is the general jurisdiction. This interbranch institution which incorporates legal norms of several branches of procedural law that interact with one another . Within this jurisdiction, different types of competences exist, including alternative general competence and contractual general competence. This article aims to highlight the particularities of these types of general competence, starting from the alternative procedural right regulated in the legislation of both the Republic of Moldova and Romania.
Methods: The results were obtained through applying various knowledge methods: synthesis, analysis, and comparison. The latter was particularly instrumental in highlighting the regulatory framework of alternative and contractual general jurisdiction in both the Republic of Moldova and Romania. This involved exploring the arguments that these jurisdiction types in the alternative procedural right, identifying the limits and conditions governing their exercise, and examining specifics of their regulation in each country. Additionally, the principles governing alternative and contractual general jurisdiction were also highlighted.
Results and Conclusions: This article successfully distinguished between alternative general jurisdiction and contractual general jurisdiction, recognising them as two distinct types of general jurisdiction. This inability to recognise their difference has led to confusion and incorrect application in the judicial practice of the rules regarding the general competence of judicial bodies. The particularities of exercising the right to choose the jurisdictional body were highlighted both under the regulations regarding the alternative general competence and the contractual one.
Finally, the study concludes with recommendations to ensure the correct application of these types of general competence in practice. It has been argued that the right to choose the jurisdictional body by virtue of general alternative and contractual jurisdiction constitutes a procedural right, not a substantive one . Proposals have also been proposed to amend the l, improving the alternative general jurisdiction and contract regulations.