High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania

High Court of Review and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

 

During the hearing of 6 June 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. 12 in case no. 212/1/2022

The Panel admits the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutors’ Office under the High Court of Review and Justice and, as a result, establishes that:

Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (5¹) and Art. 5 para. (1¹) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 83/2014 and of the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (1) and (2), Art. 3¹ para. (1) – (1³) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2015, by reference to the stipulations of Art. 16 para. (1) of Chapter VIII – Rules Specific to Judicial Staff – Appendix VI – “Justice” occupational family of budgetary positions, to Framework Law no. 284/2010, an equalization at the maximum level of salaries of judicial assistants does not imply an increase in the basic salaries based on an effective work seniority higher than 5 years.

Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 6 June 2022.

 

Judgment no. 13 in case no. 471/1/2022

The Panel admits the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Managing Board of Galaţi Court of Appeals and, as a result, based on the interpretation of Art. 120 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 99/2006, by reference to Art. 405 para. (1) of the 1865 Civil Procedure Code, to Art. 706 para. (l) of the Civil Procedure Code, and to Art. 201 of Law no. 71/2011 and Art. 6 para. (1), (4) and (5) of the Civil Code, corroborated with Art. 1 para. (2) of Decree no. 167/1958 and with Art. 2504 para. (1) of the Civil Code, establishes that:

1. The legal treatment applied to the limitation of the right to obtain the enforcement of a mortgage is governed by the substantive law norms in effect at the time when the right of the mortgagee to obtain the enforcement of its secured receivable arises, while the processual norm applicable to the enforcement proceeding is irrelevant.

2. The right to obtain enforcement under a mortgage contract is extinguished, through an accessory action, by effect of limitation of the receivable enforcement based on the loan contract if the latter starts running before the date of 1 October 2011.

3. In situations where the limitation of a right to obtain the enforcement of a secured receivable starts running after 1 October 2011 (including), the mortgage enforcement is not extinguished through an accessory action, even if the right to obtain the enforcement of the main receivable is barred by limitation, a situation in which the applicable statute of limitation is of:

– 3 years, pursuant to Art. 405 para.(1) first indent of the 1865 Civil Procedure Code, if the limitation of the mortgagee’s right to obtain the enforcement under the loan contract started running in the interval between 01 October 2011and 14 February 2013.

– 10 years, pursuant to Art. 706 para. (1), second indent, of the Civil Procedure Code, if the limitation of the mortgagee’s right to obtain enforcement under the loan contract started running after (and including) the date of 15 February 2013.

Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing today, 6 June 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