High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 15 November 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 three requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #76 in Case #2295/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Bistriţa-Năsăud– Second Civil Chamber, Administrative and Tax Litigation, returned in Case #2618/190/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
If the term “party who loses the trial” and the term “the trial”, is to be understood as the party who loses a stage of the civil process (trial cycle) in relation to Article 13, Article 83(1) and Article 87(1) in conjunction with Article 32 of the Code of Civil procedure,
or
If the term “party who loses the trial” and the term “the trial”, is to be understood as the party who loses the last phase/stage of the proceedings, represented by the appeal and, possibly, the review or even the substance, in the retrial, the solution pronounced in the previous trial stages being irrelevant.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 15 November 2021.
Decision #77 in Case #2333/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Braşov– Civil Chamber, returned in Case # 2321/62/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
In the interpretation of the provisions of Article 119(1) and (2) in Law No 76/2002, in relation to Articles XI and XII in Government Emergency Ordinance No 30/2020, to be established whether the legal relationship, the object of which is to obtain the funds necessary for payment of the allowance provided for in Article XI in Government Emergency Ordinance No 30/2020 by the employer, falls within the category of a conflict of rights as regards the establishment and payment of unemployment benefits, so that the substantive jurisdiction of the proceedings lies with the specialized panels in matters of social security rights and labor disputes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 153 (l) in Law No 263/2010, and Article 269 in the Labor Code;
In interpreting the provisions of Articles XI and XII in Government Emergency Ordinance No 30/2020, to be established whether, under the concept of “employer”, institutions or, as the case may be, public services financed partly or fully from the public or local budget may also be included.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code. Returned in public session today, 15 November 2021.
Decision #78 in Case # 2079/1/2021
Sustains the request from Court of Appeals Cluj – Civil Chamber, in Case #1602/117/2020, for a preliminary ruling and establishes the following:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 22 para. 6 in Law No 255/2010 on expropriation for public utility reasons, necessary for the achievement of objectives of national, county and local interest, as amended and supplemented, and Article 26 para. 2 in Law No 33/1994 on expropriation for public utility reasons, republished, with subsequent additions, at the judicial stage of the expropriation procedure, when determining the amount of the compensation, the provisions of Article 22 para. 6 in Law No 255/2010 shall be interpreted extensively, as meaning that it is taken into account both the “expert studies prepared and updated by the Chambers of public notaries at the time of transfer of ownership” and the legal criteria laid down in the provisions of Article 26 para. 2 in Law No 33/1994.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code. Returned in public session today, 15 November 2021.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.