High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 27 september 2021 the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each Case, considered four appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #18 in Case # 1838/1/2021
Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office under the High Court of Cassation and Justice and consequently establishes that:
In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 45 para. (5) in the Criminal Code, in the field of the criminal treatment of the concurrent infringements, the application of the accessory penalty implies that it is established first in addition to the the initial principle penalty and then in addition to the resulting principle penalty.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 27th of september 2021.
Decision #19 in Case #1922/1/2021
Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Constanţa and consequently establishes that:
In the interpretation of Art. 382 letter h) and Art. 536 in Government Emergency Ordinance No 57/2019 on the Administrative Code, as amended and supplemented, Art. 1 letter p), first sentence of Social dialog Act No 62/2011, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented and of Art. 23(1) in Law No 550/2004 on the organization and functioning of the Romanian Gendarmerie, as amended and supplemented, the judicial material jurisdiction to settle in the first instance cases concerning the obligation of the public institutions within the Romanian Gendarmerie to pay the wages to their military personnel belongs to the Chambers/ specialized panels in matters of labor conflicts within the courts.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 27th of september 2021.
Decision #20 in Case # 1696/1/2021
Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and consequently establishes that:
In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 651 para. (1), art. 666, art. 712, art. 714 and art. 112 in the the Code of civil procedure, the court of enforcement having territorial jurisdiction to rule on the action against the execution itself made by one of the debtors covered by the enforceable title, shall be the court of first instance which has granted the forced execution of that enforceable title, unless the law provides otherwise.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 27th of september 2021.
Decision #21 in Case # 1694/1/2021
Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 107, art. 113 para. (1) point 9 şi art. 116 in the the Code of civil procedure, it establishes that the term “place of harm” in claims brought by collective management organizations of copyright, having as an object the obligation of the users to pay the remuneration due for the public communication / unauthorized broadcasting of the phonograms or published for commercial purposes, or their reproduction and/or audiovisual artistic performance, corresponds to the place where the unlawful act is committed and not to the place where the loss is paid.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 27th of september 2021.
Summary of Civil ruling in file No 1133/1/2021
Pursuant to Article 442 of the Code of Civil procedure, the clerical errors contained in the justification, in the summary and in the operative part of Decision No 12 of 28 June 2021, delivered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – The Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law in case No 1133/1/2021, are rectified, in that, in paragraphs 11 and 89 for the justification, in the summary and in the operative part of the decision, instead of “art. 66 of Law No 24/2000”, it would be “Art. 68 of Law No 24/2000”.
Returned in the Council Chamber today, the 27th of september 2021.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.