High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its hearing of 27 June 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in each of the cases, settled four referrals for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgments:
Judgment no. 40 in case no. 851/1/2022
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Iași Court of Appeals – Chamber for Employment and Social Insurance Litigation, in case no. 5475/99/2020, for a preliminary ruling concerning the clarification of the following law matter:
Whether based on the interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. 306 para. (2) and Art. 328 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the sanction of removing from the pieces of evidence of a document established to be forged, which occurs as a result of failure to appear in court of the party having lodged it with the case file on the term set for a check of such document, is based on a legal presumption that cannot be rebutted in appeal by contrary proof, or on a presumption that can be rebutted in appeal, based on the devolutive nature of this mean of appeal, in light of Judgment no. 9 of 30 March 2020 of the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Settlement of Appeals in the Interest of the Law, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania no. 548 of 25 June 2020, and on the application of the provisions of Art. 479 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code referring to the restoration or supplementing of evidence produced in the court of first instance.
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 27 June 2022.
Judgment no. 41 in case no. 795/1/2022
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Buzău Tribunal – Second Chamber for Civil, Administrative and Tax Litigation, in case no. 14029/200/2020, for a preliminary ruling concerning the clarification of the following law matter:
„Whether the value of a remunerated mandate contract consists in the value of the receivable for the recovery of which the mandate contract was concluded or in the value of the attorney-at-fact’s remuneration.”
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 27 June 2022.
Judgment no. 42 in case no. 815/1/2022
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Prahova Tribunal – First Civil Chamber, in case no. 2542/331/2020*, for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of Art. 6 para. (1), by reference to Art. 4 para. (1) item a) and b) and Art. 5 para. (1) and (2) of Law no. 77/2016 on Datio in Solutum of Real Properties for the Extinction of Liabilities Assumed under Loans, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in order to establish:
„1. Whether the suspensive effect set by the provisions of Art. 6 para. (1) of Law no. 77/2016 applies ipso jure in case of blatant non-fulfillment of the admissibility requirements provided by Art. 4 para. (1) item a) and b) and/or of the form requirements applicable to the datio in solutum notification set forth by the provisions of Art. 5 para. (1) and (2) of Law no. 77/2016;
2. Whether the non-fulfillment of the requirements provided by Art. 4 para. (1) item a) and b) and/or of the form requirements applicable to the datio in solutum notification set by the provisions of Art. 5 para. (1) and (2) of Law no. 77/2016 can be appealed by the bailiff under the enforcement proceeding by virtue of its active role.
3. Whether the enforcement court vested with the settlement of a challenge on enforcement, whereby the party claims the non-fulfillment of the requirements provided by Art. 4 para. (1) item a) and b) and/or of the form requirements applicable to the datio in solutum notification set by the provisions of Art. 5 para. (1) and (2) of Law no. 77/2016 can analyz the admissibility requirements indicated in the precedent under such proceeding.”
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 27 June 2022.
Judgment no. 43 in case no. 888/1/2022
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Bucharest Tribunal – Sixth Civil Chamber, in case no. 26110/299/2020, for a preliminary ruling concerning the clarification of the following law matter:
„Based on the application of the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 January 2016, rendered in joined cases C-359/14 “ERGO Insurance” SE versus “If P&C Insurance” AS and C-475/14 “Gjensidige Baltic” AAS versus “PZU Lietuva” UAB DK, a review of the Romanian law, in order to establish whether and to what extent the MTPL insurer of a towing vehicle can subrogate itself against the MTPL insurer of the semi-trailer, should be limited by the ordinary law norms set by Art. 2.210 of the Civil Code, or one should consider the special norms in the MTPL area issued by the Financial Supervisory Authority in respect of the right to regress.”
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 27 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