High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 7 June 2021, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each Case, considered ten requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #38 in Case #661/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber IX for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in Case #28560/3/2019, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
The interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (1) and Art. 3 in Government Decision #1086/2004 establishing the specific extra pay and amounts for per diem, accommodation and meals granted to personnel participating in missions outside the territory of the Romanian state, not published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, in the sense of establishing whether the pay rights regulated by those stipulations (per diem in hard currency and the amount for the facilitation of staying in touch with family and recreation) should be granted by the Romanian state without being conditioned by the payment of those same rights by the international organizations under whose umbrella the mission is taking place, even if they have different names and amounts but are paid for the same purpose.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #39 in Case #861/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Brăila – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case #9487/196/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
What is the interpretation of Art. 906 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code, and respectively establish whether a creditor can still ask the Court to set the final amount owed them by the debtor as penalties in the hypothesis where the debtor pays their obligation within less than 3 months of the date of communication of the judgment that was returned on the basis of para. (2) or (3) of Art. 906 in the Civil Procedure Code.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #40 in Case #944/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Oradea – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case #357/111/2019, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
By relying on the stipulations of Art. 60 para. (3) in Law #223/2015 on Military Pension, in the version that was in force on 30 June 2017, after updating pension rights as under Art. 60 para. (1) in Law #223/2015, in the version that was in force on 30 June 2017, performed on the basis of Law #152/2017 Approving Government Emergency Order #99/2016 on certain measures for the pay of personnel from public funds, for the prorogation of certain deadlines and for certain tax and budget measures, as subsequently supplemented, should the final calculation of pension rights also include the mounts resulting from the 5% increase regulated by the stipulations of Art. 14 para. (2) in Government Emergency Order #57/2015 on the pay of personnel from public funds in the year 2016, the prorogation of certain deadlines and certain tax and budget measures, as amended and supplemented.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #41 in Case #636/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Harghita – Chamber for Civil Matters, in Case #4184/258/2018, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
Is Art. 55 para. (1) in Law #4/1953 – the Family Code, as republished with amendments and supplements, in the version preceding the amendment brought under Law #288/2007 that amended and supplemented Law #4/1953 – the Family Code, still applicable in the light of Art. 8 in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Rights?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June 2020.
Decision #42 in Case #635/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Iași – Chamber I for Civil Matters in Case #1187/244/2019 for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
In the interpretation of Art. 123 para. (1), (3) and (9) in Law #85/2014 legal action is not admissible for termination of contracts for successive performance maintained by the judicial administrator or the liquidator, as filed in regular procedure after the moment the insolvency procedure is opened, on grounds of the debtor defendant’s failure to comply with their contract obligations consisting of payment of amounts owed before the procedure was opened.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #43 in Case #643/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Tribunal Bucharest – Chamber V for Civil Matters in Case #34108/299/2013* and consequently rules that:
In the interpretation and application of Art. 2279 and Art. 2321 in the Civil Code, corroborated with Art. 120 in Government Emergency Order #99/2006, a letter of guarantee issued by a credit institution constitutes an enforceable title only if issued as collateral for a credit contract.
Obligatory, as under Art. 519 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #44 in Case #834/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VI for Civil Matters, in Case #12297/3/2016/a28, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
“What is the interpretation of the stipulations in Art. 5 para. (1) item 21 and Art. 123 para. (9) in Law #85/2014 on Procedures to Prevent Insolvency and on Insolvency, namely can we consider as current debt the interest accrued after the opening of the procedure in the situation of a credit contract (concluded prior to the motion to open the procedure but maintained after the opening of the procedure) signed with an interest rate established depending on a periodical reference index and which is not known at the date of the opening of the procedure so that the creditor can calculate the amount of interest due after that moment.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #45 in Case #932/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VIII for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in Case #971/2/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
1. In the interpretation and application of Art. 50 para. (1) in Government Order #39/2005 on Cinematography, should the notion ‘failure to comply with the stipulations in this Order concerning the granting of a direct credit for production’ be interpreted in the sense that the Committee for Resolving Challenges established at the Ministry of Culture has authority to reevaluate the screenplays of cinematography projects?
2. Can Art. 50 para. (1) in Government Order #39/2005 on Cinematography be interpreted in the sense that the participants in the Selection Contest for Cinematography Projects organized by the National Center for Cinematography can file challenges against the specifics of the evaluation of cinematography projects (quality of screenplay, quality of director, quality of producer)?
3. Art. 50 in Government Order #39/2005 on Cinematography be interpreted in the sense that care the Committee for Resolving Challenges established at the Ministry of Culture has authority to reevaluate the screenplays of cinematography projects enlisted in the Contest?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #46 in Case #3464/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Suceava – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case #99/86/2020, for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
Following Constitutional Court Decision #189 of 18 March 2021, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, #466 of 4 May 2021, the stipulations of Art. 21 para. (6) in Law #165/2013 on Steps to Complete the process of Restitution, in Kind or Equivalent, of Buildings Abusively Appropriated by the Communist Regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented, then as amended by Law #219/2020 to Amend and Supplement Law #165/2013 on Steps to Complete the process of Restitution, in Kind or Equivalent, of Buildings Abusively Appropriated by the Communist Regime in Romania, have ceased to apply and can no longer be used as a legal basis for Cases on the docket of courts of law concerning compensation judgments issued prior to the entry into force of the amended Law and that had not received a final resolution on the date the Constitutional Court Decision was published in the Official Journal of Romania.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #47 in Case #736/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Bucharest – Chamber IV for Civil Matters, in Case #7079/303/2018, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
What is the interpretation and application of Art. 1 para. (3) and Art. 4 Thesis One in Law #165/2013 on Steps to Complete the process of Restitution, in Kind or Equivalent, of Buildings Abusively Appropriated by the Communist Regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented, also corroborated with the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (1) and Art. 3 item 6 in the same Law, Art. 27 para. (1) in the Law of Real Estate #18/1991, republished, as amended and supplemented, and the stipulations of Art. 1 in Additional Protocol #1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in the sense of establishing whether, in the situation where the recipient of an irrevocable court judgment that compels the local committee for the establishing of private land ownership rights to draw up the required documentation and compels the county committee for the establishing of private land ownership rights to issue the ownership title over a piece of land that has been measured as a surface and marked as a location, has sold their legal action rights arising from laws for property restitution, prior to the issuance of the ownership title and the taking possession of the asset but, after entry into force of Law #165/2013, the assignee, as a person entitled to reparatory measures, has the exclusive right to the reparatory measure stipulated in the new Law and which consists of points-based compensation as under Art. 24 para. (2)-(4) in Law #165/2013 or is entitled to the issuance of the ownership title and the taking possession of the asset.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
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