High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its hearing of 9 May 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 five referrals for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgments:
Judgment no. 24 in case no. 458/1/2022
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Bucharest Court of Appeals – Fifth Civil Chamber, in case no. 8720/299/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter:
The manner of interpreting the applicability of the provisions of Art. 2.551-2.553 of the Civil Code in case of terms set based on calendar days in agreements between parties.
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.
Judgment no. 25 in case no. 460/1/2022
The panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Bucharest Court of Appeals – Fifth Civil Chamber, in case no. 2921/3/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter:
Whether in actions claiming the award of moral damages filed against an insurance company and BAAR (the action requesting the court to order the respondents to jointly pay), the plaintiffs have a possibility to choose between the award of penalties in an amount of 0.2% per day of delay set forth by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 54/2016 on Mandatory Civil Liability Insurance for Car Owners for Damages Caused to Third Parties through Car and Tram Accidents, and the statutory penalty interest stipulated by the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 13/2011 on Statutory Interest and Penalty Rate for Financial Obligations and Regulating some Financial and Tax Steps in the Banking Area, as approved by Law no. 43/2012, as subsequently supplements, and by the Civil Code.
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.
Judgment no. 26 in case no. 259/1/2022
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Bucharest Court of Appeals – Third Chamber for Civil, Minors and Family Cases, in case no. 30797/3/2018, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matters:
A. The interpretation of effects of Decision no. 189 of 18 March 2021 of the Romanian Constitutional Court, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania no. 466 of 4 May 2021, Declaring Unconstitutional the Legal Provisions of Art. 21 para. (6) of Law no. 165/2013 on Steps for Finalizing the Process of Restitution, in Kind or by Equivalent, of Properties Taken Abusively during the Communist Regime in Romania, as subsequently amended and supplemented, as amended by Law no. 219/2020 amending and supplementing Law no. 165/2013 on Steps for Finalizing the Process of Restitution, in Kind or by Equivalent, of Properties Taken Abusively during the Communist Regime in Romania, in the sense of establishing whether the fact that these legal provisions have been declared unconstitutional has as effect the reinstatement of the legal norm in its form prior to the time when it has been declared unconstitutional, meaning of Art. 21 para. (6) of Law no. 165/2013, as amended by Art. I point 2 of Law no. 22/2020 amending Law no. 165/2013 on Steps for Finalizing the Process of Restitution, in Kind or by Equivalent, of Properties Taken Abusively during the Communist Regime in Romania and supplementing Article 4 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 94/2000 on the Retrocession of Real Properties Having Belonged to Religious Cults of Romania.
B. If the answer to the first question is negative, based on Art. 5 paras. (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, in applying Art. 1 para. (2) and Art. 16 of Law no. 165/2013, can the value of compensation be established in compliance with the legal provisions referring to similar situations stipulated by Art. 566 or Art. 1.640 of the Civil Code or in compliance with the general law principles, or by applying the notarial grids in effect as of the date when the case is finally adjudicated?
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.
Judgment no. 27 in case no. 353/1/2022
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Maramureş Tribunal – First Civil Chamber, in case no. 651/319/2018, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter:
Clarification of the interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. 51-53 of Land Law no. 18/1991, as republished and as subsequently amended and supplemented, based on the considerations of the Constitutional Court’s Decision no. 44 of 31 January 2017, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania no. 211 of 28 March 2017, and Decision no. 139 of 27 March 2018, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania no. 638 of 23 July 2018, i.e., whether a sue petition requesting the court to order the restoration of an ownership right is admissible in a case where the administrative procedure has not been finalized and in the absence of a decision of the county commission for setting private ownership rights over land.
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.
Judgment no. 28 in case no. 351/1/2022
The Panel admits a referral filed by Cluj Court of Appeals – Second Civil Chamber in case no. 337/112/2018/a7 for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
The provisions of Art. 45 para. (1) item k)and o) of Law no. 85/2014 on Insolvency Prevention and Insolvency Proceedings, as subsequently amended and supplemented, must be interpreted in a sense that the bankruptcy judge can confirm a reorganization plan only to the extent that there is a resolution of the meeting of creditors approving such reorganization plan.
The provisions of Art. 138 para. (4) and Art. 139 para. (1) of Law no. 85/2014 must be interpreted in the sense that the inability to adopt a resolution in the meeting of creditors convened for the approval of the reorganization plan due to a lack of quorum due to the non-attendance of failure duly convened creditors of at least two meetings having the same agenda is not equivalent to a negative vote on the reorganization plan.
Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 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