High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 9 November 2020, High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered two appeals in the interest of the law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #28 in case #2458/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Bucharest on the following point of law:
The interpretation and application of Art. 17 in Law # 136/2020 on Instating Public Health Measures in Situations of Epidemiological and Biological Risk, in the meaning of establishing the materially and procedurally jurisdictional court for trying the appeal brought against the judgment returned by the district court in disputes whose object is nullification of decisions to instate quarantine issued by the public health authority.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 9 November 2020.
Judgment #29 in case #2095/1/2020
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Suceava and consequently:
1. The interpretation and application of Art. III para. (1) letter a) item vi in Law # 169/1997, amending and supplementing the Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991, as amended and supplemented, from the point of view of the evolution over time of cases of nullity, consideration shall be given to the regime of absolute virtual nullity and the rule of tempus regit actum.
2. In the interpretation and application of Art. 29 para. (2) in Law # 1/2000 on Reconstituting Ownership Rights over Farmland and Forests, required under the Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991 and Law #169/1997, as amended and supplemented, in the format they had prior to the amendments brought under Law #247/2005 on Reform in the Domains of Ownership and Justice, as well as some associated measures, as amended and supplemented, the Court establishes that:
The phrase “church fund of the denomination” refers exclusively to the assets of the component units of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and does not include the assets of the foundations established by the Church.
The phrase “had ownership of” refers to the existence, in the matter of the assets of the denomination entities mentioned at para. (2) of Art. 29, of a complete ownership right corresponding to the meaning resulting from the interpretation of Art. 480 in the 1864 Civil Code, and does not include particular historic formats of the ownership right.
3. In the interpretation and application of Art. 29 para. (31) in Law # 1/2000, in the format they had prior to the amendments brought under Law #261/2008 on amending and supplementing Art. 29 in Law # 1/2000 on Reconstituting Ownership Rights over Farmland and Forests, required under the Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991 and Law #169/1997, the Court establishes that the text of the law refers to the surface of land assigned as forest land which was part of the assets of, or was administered by, or assigned for use to, denomination entities as distinct and separate subjects of the law and which claimed ownership over such surface, and does not refer to such land as belonged, in the same ways, to the religious denomination those entities are part of.
4. Denies as inadmissible the claim to remove application of the absolute nullity sanction for the ownership right, based on Art. 1 in Additional Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the interpretation and application of this Convention.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 9 November 2020.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published din the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS