High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its hearing of 21 February 2022, the Panel for the Settlement of Appeals in the Interest of the Law the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in each of the cases, settled two appeals in the interest of the law, and returned the following judgments:
Judgment no. 4 in case no. 3036/1/2021
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Managing Board of Suceava Court of Appeals concerning the following law matters:
Whether based on the interpretation and application of Art. 430 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the concept of res judicata authority does not allow for the existence of discrepancies between a judgment’s enactment terms and its considerations, except for cases in which such discrepancies are justified by the applicability of the non reformatio in pejus principle in the case.
Whether the wording “the situations expressly stipulated by law,” contained in Art. 481 of the Civil Procedure Code, in which the law allows for a possibility to aggravate the situation of a party in its own appeal, by derogation from the non reformatio in pejus principle, should be interpreted in the sense that the scope of such cases falls only under the exception to res judicata authority, by applying Art. 432, second indent, of the Civil Procedure Code or, on the contrary, under other absolute public order processual exceptions (of substance or of procedure) able to invalidate the lawfulness of a judgment rendered by the lower court by disregarding some imperative provisions intended to secure and protect social security and legal order.
Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 21 February 2022.
Judgment no. 5 in case no. 3065/1/2021
The Panel admits the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Ombudsman, and, as a result, establishes that:
Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 684 and 687 of Law no. 95/2006 and of Art. 94 point 1 item k) and Art. 95 point 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the substantive jurisdiction to adjudicate cases under which the court is requested to order the respondents, on a tortious ground, to pay material and/or moral damages for malpractice in a situation where the procedure regulated by the stipulations of Art. 679 – 685 of Law no. 95/2006 has not been followed rests on district courts.
Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing today, 21 February 2022.
After the considerations are drafted, and the judgments are signed, they will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.
Information and Public Relations Office