High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 30 January 2023, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered six requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment 3 in Case 2219/1/2022
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Suceava – First Civil Chamber in Case no. 3244/86/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
The provisions of Article IX para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017 on amending and supplementing certain acts in the field of service pensions shall apply also to the service pensions of the auditors within the Court of Accounts.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.
Judgment 4 in Case 2287/1/2022
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Arad – III Administrative Jurisdiction, Tax, Labour and Social Security Chamber, in Case no. 1572/108/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 5 para. (6) of Decree-Law No 118/1990 on the granting of certain rights to persons persecuted for political reasons by the dictatorship established from 6 March 1945, as well as to those deported abroad or taken prisoner, republished in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No 1208 of 10 December 2020, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the adopted child with the effects of natural filiation by other persons is not excluded, for this reason, from the benefit of the rights requested, in view of the political persecution of his biological parent.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.
Judgment 5 in Case 2155/1/2022
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – IV Civil Chamber, in Case no. 16927/4/2017*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“If the provisions of Article 262 para. (4) of Law no. 207/2015 on the Code of Tax Procedure, as amended, derogate from the common law represented by Art. 724 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as regards the method of restoring the previous situation in the event that the foreclosed assets has been valorised, i.e. if, according to Art. 262 para. (4) of Law no. 207/2015 on the Code of Tax Procedure, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in tax matters, the method of restoring the previous situation in the event that the foreclosed assets have been valorised can be done only by the restitution by the person entitled of the amount due to him from the valorisation of the assets”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.
Judgment 6 in Case 2350/1/2022
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Giurgiu – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 5434/236/2020*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
– Decision No 7 of 15 April 2013 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law on the interpretation and application of Article 460 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1865 remains applicable also under the provisions of Article 790 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
– Failure by the creditor or the bailiff to submit an application for validation of the attachment within the time-limit laid down in Article 790 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of one month from the date on which the third party debtor was due to deposit or pay the sum sought, entail the penalty of forfeiture of the right of the bailiff to issue a new writ of attachment in the same enforcement proceedings in respect of the same garnishee and the same claim?
– If the answer to the second question is in the negative, does the issuing by the bailiff of a new writ of attachment, in the same enforcement proceedings and in respect of the same garnishee and the same claim, after the expiry of the time-limit within which he could obtain the validation of the attachment previously ordered, have the effect of causing a new time-limit of one month to run within which to obtain the validation of the attachment subsequently established, or does it have the effect of restoring the time-limit for obtaining the validation of the first attachment?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.
Judgment 7 in Case 2295/1/2022
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Timiş– Second Civil Chamber, in Case no. 15737/325/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 25 letter (b) of Law No 132/2017 on compulsory insurance for motor civil liability for damage caused to third parties by accidents involving vehicles and trams, as subsequently amended and supplemented, Article 2.528, Article 1.597 and Article 1.394 of the Civil Code, in the event of an action for recourse by the insurer against the person responsible for the accident, based on the provisions of Article 25 para. (b) of Law No 132/2017, is the extension of the limitation period provided for in Article 1.394 of the Civil Code applicable?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.
Judgment 8 in Case 2069/1/2022
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Timiş– First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 25826/325/2018, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
If, in the land register regions where the provisions of Decree-Law No. 115/1938 on the unification of the provisions concerning land registers, as subsequently amended, have been applied, in the case of a property entered in the land register under the same act and before the entry into force of the Law on Cadastre and Real Estate Publication No. 7/1996, republished, with subsequent amendments and additions, the owner may apply to the court to change the surface area of the property in accordance with the provisions of Article 914 of the Civil Code or if this change of surface area can be obtained only after going through the procedure provided for in Article 41 of Law No. 7/1996.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.