The Powers of a Judge on his Own Initiative on Relying upon Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

In civil proceedings, rendering a default judgment is exceptional, and it is therefore obvious that some special rules must govern the judicial process. Due to the absence of the defendant, the intervention of the judge in the case should be more substantial and consequential. Some possible objections should also be directly taken into consideration by the sitting judge. In order to speed up proceedings, the Civil Procedure Act has set forth the resolution of certain issues, such as jurisdiction or objections concerning procedure as soon as possible. However, in the judgment discussed in the present article, the answer to one of the first questions related to proceedings, i.e., the issue of the jurisdiction of the court, took more than a year, and finally, after two hearings in courts that lacked jurisdiction, through the intervention of the Supreme Court it was remanded to a court that had jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, such an arrangement imposes costs on the judicial system as the representative of public rights and the plaintiffs in the case and other clients, and it is clear that the problem should be resolved much sooner than it was. By granting certain powers to the judge, the issue can be managed more expeditiously and repetition of a similar situation can be prevented. However, according to current regulations, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court has prioritized observation of the defendant's individual rights, and while reversing the default judgment has remanded the case to a competent court, which decision seems to be correct and in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act.