Page 169 - Carte Falimentul BIR

Maria, Bumbulut Anca, Dumitrescu Gabriela and others, who executed the
procedural acts.

Further on, we will only refer to the magistrate Maria Năvală, who has solved the
re-judgment of a series of appeals submitted by the shareholders representatives
after the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, admitting their appeal, quashed the
decision given by the magistrate Negru Cristina.

Verifying the nomination of Mrs. Năvala Maria in the so-called File no. 5615 /
th
March 12 2000, a copy of the nomination was obtained, with the surprising
finding that this legal act of procedure is absolutely null, being a forgery.

Thus, this conclusion drafting does not comply with the provisions of art. 261 and

268 of the Civil Procedure Code, because there are not mentioned the names of
the judge (chairman) or of the clerk, at the names of the parties appearing in block
capitals a certain creditor "B.M.R", and the conclusion is not motivated as
stipulated in art. 268, paragraph 4, of Civil Procedure Code, etc.

What is interesting, however, is that the signature of the conclusion dated May
th
15 2001 belongs to Mrs. Maria Huza, the President of the Bucharest Court, or,
according to CSM (Superior Council of Magistracy) notification no. 7256/ SR/
th
2005 issued on 10 of June 2005, the person was promoted to the position of
President of the Bucharest Court on June 1 2001, through CSM Decision no. 154
st
/ 22.05.2001.

Art. 106 par. 1 Civil Procedure Code states that:

"The annulment of a procedural act also entails the nullity of the following acts,
as they cannot have a stand-alone existence."

So, the acts performed by the magistrates who made subsequent judgments after
the replacement of the magistrate Negru Cristina, who does not have the
competence required by the law, cannot have a stand-alone existence, these being
null and void.

6. The legal acts and the operations carried out by the liquidators of «Asset
Reconversion and Valuation» / “Moore Stephens RVA” over the International
Bank of Religions were therefore committed on the basis of a legally null ruling
because, as it has been shown, on a non-existent petition for a non-invested court,
by an non-invested or incompetent court, by an incompetent judge, by a minute
drawn up in violation of the legal provisions.

Even if in a school hypothesis, the validity of the Sentence no. 4461/2000 is
accepted, the following should be taken into consideration:

167