High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 14 September 2020, High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered five appeals in the interest of the law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #19 in case #1372/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Braşov in the following matter:
“Is transmitting public-interest information in electronic format to be performed against a fee or free of charge?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 14 September 2020.
Judgment #20 in case #1374/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Braşov on the following point of law:
1. Is it admissible to indicate new assets in a claim for compensation as under Art. 1 para. (2) in Law # 165/2013 on measures to complete the process of restitution, in kind or in equivalent, of buildings forfeited abusively during the period of the communist regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented, and Art. 221 para. (1) in the Rules for Implementation of Law #165/2013 on measures to complete the process of restitution, in kind or in equivalent, of buildings forfeited abusively during the period of the communist regime in Romania, approved under Government Decision #401/2013 as subsequently supplemented, ulterior to the first hearing with full legal procedure completed before the court of first instance, in view of Art. 204 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code?
2. Is it admissible to bring a claim for compensation, directly in appeal, regarding assets that were not indicated before the court of first instance, based on Art. 1 para. (2) in Law # 165/2013 and Art. 221 para. (1) in the Rules for Implementation of Law #165/2013, in view of Art. 478 para. (2) and (3) and Art. 479 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code, and what is the procedural act the claimant could use to bring such claim at the appeal stage?
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 14 September 2020.
Judgment #21 in case #1375/1/2020
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Braşov.
The interpretation and application of Art. 91 para. (1) and (2), corroborated with Art. 23 in Government Order #92/2003 on the Tax Procedure Code as republished, amended and supplemented, are that the 5-year statute of limitation of the tax body’s right to establish tax obligations in the form of profit tax and accessories thereof starts running as of the date of 1 January of the year subsequent to the tax year during which the taxable profit was derived which serves as the calculation basis for the profit tax owed by the taxpayer.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 14 September 2020.
Judgment #22 in case #1376/1/2020
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Braşov.
In public-office disputes brought to compel the employer to pay outstanding salary rights, as well as when the employer failed to issue an administrative act or said act was not communicated to the public servant, the latter can bring the case directly before the administrative litigations court without it being necessary to previously require the employer to pay said rights.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 14 September 2020.
Judgment #23 in case #1468/1/2020
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Review and Justice.
In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 335 para. (1) in the Criminal Procedure Code concerning resumption in the case of reopening a criminal investigation the Court establishes that:
In the situation of a rejection of a solution proposed by a prosecutor from lower prosecutor’s offices or the specialist entities of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Review and Justice (National Anticorruption Department, Department for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism), the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Review and Justice does not in every case have the capacity that is specifically stipulated by Art. 335 para. (1) in the Criminal Procedure Code, which refers to “the prosecutor hierarchically superior to the one who proposed the solution.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 474 para. (4) in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today 14 September 2020.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS