High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 13 March 2023, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each Case, considered two appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:
Decision No 1 in Case No 9/1/2023
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest and consequently establishes that:
In the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 253 para. (1) letter (c) of the Civil Code and Article 94 point (1) letters (h) and (k) and Article 95 point (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the tribunal shall have jurisdiction to rule on the substance of cases involving applications for a declaration of the unlawful nature of an act adversely affecting non-pecuniary rights based on the provisions of Article 253 para. (1) letter (c) of the Civil Code, where they are brought simultaneously with claims based on Article 253 para. (4) of the Civil Code to award compensation for non-pecuniary damage not exceeding 200,000 lei inclusive.
Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delivered in public session today, 13 March 2023.
Decision No 2 in Case No 2648/1/2022
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Suceava and consequently establishes that:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 562 para. (1) of Law no. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, amended and supplemented by Law no. 197/2021, the legal provisions referred to recognise ope legis a reduction of the standard retirement age by 13 years for persons who have completed a contribution period of 25 years, corresponding to at least 30 years of activity in the jobs referred to in Art. 30 para. (1) letter (i) of Law No. 263/2010 on the Unified Public Pension System, as amended and supplemented by Law No. 197/2021, regardless of the conditions under which the activity was performed by the employer/former employer under the previous legislation and regardless of the type of social insurance contribution due by the employer/former employer.
Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delivered in public session today, 13 March 2023.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 12 December 2022, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in the Case, considered an appeal in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgment:
Decision No 27 in Case No 2180/1/2022
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Iaşi and in the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 174 of Law No 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings, as amended and supplemented, Article 173 para. (2), as well as art. 180 of the same law, establishes that:
Insolvency proceedings may not be closed prior to the resolution by a final judgment of the action for the incurrence of liability for insolvency brought pursuant to Article 169 of Law No. 85/2014.
Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delivered in public session today, 12 December 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 14 November 2022, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each Case, considered four appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:
Decision no. 23 in Case No. 1059/1/2022
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Public Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and consequently establishes that:
In the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 38 para. (1) letter c) and Art. 40 para. (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisdiction of the court in criminal cases involving offences committed by judges and prosecutors who have acquired a higher professional rank than that of the court/prosecutor’s office in which they actually work is determined by reference to the court/prosecutor’s office in which the magistrate under investigation actually works and not to his/her higher professional rank.
Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 474 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delivered in public session today, 14 November 2022.
Decision No 24 in Case No 1847/1/2022
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Braşov and, consequently, establishes that:
In the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 1 para. (1) of Government Decision No 1.086/2004 on the determination of specific allowances and entitlements to daily subsistence allowance, accommodation and food due to personnel participating in missions outside the territory of the Romanian State, not published in the Official Journal of Romania, the purpose of the daily subsistence allowance is to compensate for the inconvenience resulting from the risks to which personnel participating in missions outside the territory of the Romanian State in areas of operations are subject.
Dismisses the remainder of the request as inadmissible.
Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delivered in public session today, 14 November 2022.
Decision No 25 in Case No 1925/1/2022
Denies as inadmissible the request for an appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Cluj concerning the following matter of law:
The uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. 226 and Art. 228 of Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of Law no. 287/2009 on the Civil Code, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in relation to the provisions of Art. 95 para. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, concerning the determination of the substantive procedural jurisdiction of the specialised tribunals (Argeș, Cluj, Mureș) or of the specialised chambers/panels of the other tribunals in the settlement of appeals against decisions of the courts rejecting applications for a declaration of enforceability, where the enforceable title is issued by a professional in the context of the operation of a business.
Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delivered in public session today, 14 November 2022.
Decision No 26 in Case No 1938/1/2022
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Suceava and, consequently, establishes that:
The provisions of Article 7 para. (5) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2020 for the approval of support measures paid from European funds, following the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus, during the state of emergency, approved with amendments and additions by Law No 82/2020, with subsequent amendments and additions, as amended by Law No. 166/2021 amending and supplementing Article 7 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2020 approving certain support measures paid from European funds as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus during the state of emergency are not applicable to claims pending before the courts on the date of entry into force of Law No 166/2021.
Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Delivered in public session today, 14 November 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 17 October 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered three requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #20 in Case #1605/1/2022
The Panel sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by Prosecutor General of the Prosecutors’ Office attached to the High Court of Review and Justice.
Based on a consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 7 para. (l) of Law no.76/2008 on the Organization and Operation of the National Judicial Genetic Data System, as amended, it establishes that:
The harvesting of biological samples from persons who were received a final conviction, or in whose respect a postponement or a waiver of the service of the sentence was ordered for having perpetrated offences provided in the Appendix to Law #76/2008, is optional, not mandatory, and courts have the discretion to decide whether genetic prints should be inserted or not in the National Judicial Genetic Data System.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 17th of October 2022.
Judgment #21 in Case #1525/1/2022
The Panel sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Galaţi Court of Appeals and establishes that:
Based on a consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 454 of the Civil Procedure Code, a respondent cannot be exonerated from paying court fees in a case the subject matter of which consists of a litigation falling under the category of those that are not subject to the formal notice proceeding or of a litigation in which a judgment cannot be rendered only based on the admission of facts by the respondent.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 17th of October 2022.
Judgment #22 in Case #1544/1/2022
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request for an appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Cluj Court of Appeals concerning the following law matter:
„The interpretation of the stipulations of Art. 165 para. (2) of Law #263/2010 on the Uniform Public Pension System, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in order to establish whether, in calculating the pension rights, one should consider all salary income effectively collected prior to the date of 1 April 2001, in respect of which social insurance contributions were paid, independently from the permanent or non-permanent nature of such income and from whether it was or not part of the pension calculation basis under the legislation in effect prior to the date of 1 April 2001.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 17th of October 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 3 October 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered four requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #16 in Case #1368/1/2022
The Panel sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Collegiate Management Body of the Alba Iulia Court of Appeals and establishes that:
The stipulations of Art. 52 para. 4 of Law #80/1995 on the Status of Military Staff, as subsequently amended and supplemented, introduced by Law #101/2019, do not apply to persons specified by Art. 36 para. 1 items e) and h) of Law #80/1995 who were included in the corps of officers prior to the coming into effect of Law #101/2019.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 3rd of October 2022.
Judgment #17 in Case #1393/1/2022
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request for an appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Ombudsman on the following point of law:
The interpretation and application of the stipulations of point 3, corroborated with points 6-8 and point 12, by reference to Appendix #2 of Order #50/1990 of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, the Ministry of Health and the National Work Protection Commission Specifying Workplaces, Activities and Professional Categories Included under Special Working Conditions Falling under the 1st and 2nd Work Groups for Retirement Purposes, as subsequently amended, and the stipulations of points 1-5 of Order #125/1990 of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, the Ministry of Health and the National Work Protection Commission Specifying Workplaces, Activities and Professional Categories Included under Special Working Conditions Falling under the 1st and 2nd Work Groups for Retirement Purposes for the period worked after 1 March 1990, by establishing whether the work performed in former territorial computing centers can be included in the 2nd work group.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 3rd of October 2022.
Judgment #18 in Case #1423/1/2022
The Panel sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Collegiate Management Body of the Braşov Court of Appeals and establishes that:
In applying Art. 14 para. (2) of Government Order #2/2001 on the Legal Status of Misdemeanors, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in disputes concerning administrative complaints, the court may rely on and invoke, sua sponte, the limitation of enforcement of the administrative sanction.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 3rd of October 2022.
Judgment #19 in Case #1276/1/2022
The Panel sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Collegiate Management Body of the Cluj Court of Appeals and establishes that:
Based on a consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 262 para. (4), by reference to the stipulations of Art. 75 of Law #85/2014 on Insolvency Prevention and Insolvency Proceedings, as subsequently amended and supplemented, avenues of appeal lodged by a debtor that is an insurance/reinsurance company, against which a bankruptcy proceeding was initiated, against court judgments having adjudicated actions of its creditor/creditors for the collection of receivables against the debtor’s estate filed with the court before the initiation of such proceeding are not suspended by operation of law.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 3rd of October 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 19 September 2022, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in the case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #15 in Case #1134/1/2022
The Panel sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Galaţi Court of Appeals and establishes that:
Under a consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 52 para. (2) of Law #53/2003 – the Labor Code, as republished and subsequently amended and supplemented, based on the Constitutional Court Decision #405 of 15 June 2016, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania #517 of 8 July 2016, in case of an employee in whose respect the employer issued, under Art. 52 para. (l) item b) first intent of Law #53/2003 – the Labor Code, a decision suspending his/her individual employment agreement as a result of effects of Constitutional Court’s Decision #279 of 23 April 2015, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania #431 of 17 June 2015, in a situation where the legal relationship governed by the stipulations of the law found to be unconstitutional was not permanently consolidated, the employee has a right of claim consisting of a compensation equivalent to the remuneration due to him/her all along the suspension term under the norms and principles of civil contractual liability.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 19th of September 2022.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its hearing of 27 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 the case, settled an appeal in the interest of the law, and returned the following judgment:
Judgment no. 14 in case no. 893/1/2022
The Panel admits the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Managing Board of Iaşi Court of Appeals and, as a result, establishes that:
Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 169 para. (1) item d), second intent, of Law no. 85/2014 on Insolvency Prevention and Insolvency Proceedings, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in a situation where the respondent does not hand over the accounting documents to the insolvency practitioner following a prior notice, it is relatively presumed that all requirements for triggering the former’s financial liability for the act provided by Art. 169 para. (1) item d) of the same law are met.
Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing today, 27 June 2022.
After the considerations are drafted, and the judgment is signed, it will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.
Information and Public Relations Office
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its hearing of 21 March 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 three appeals in the interest of the law, and rendered the following judgments:
Judgment no. 9 in case no. 3038/1/2021
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 establishes that:
According to the stipulations of Art. 339 para. (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the judicial body having jurisdiction to settle a complaint filed by a dissatisfied party in a case where the prosecutor directly supervising the one who issued the decision to close the case admitted it, invalidated the decision of the prosecutor handling the case, and issued a new case closure decision for reasons other than those relied upon by the petitioner is the preliminary chamber judge.
Rendered in public hearing today, 21 March 2022.
Judgment no. 10 in case no. 159/1/2022
The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Managing Board of Brașov Court of Appeals concerning the clarification of the following law matter:
Whether, based on the interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 2523 of the Civil Code, the beneficiary should have known the financial rights due to it, with the consequence of expiry of the statute of limitation of the substantive right to challenge, due to the fact that it failed to take steps to learn the contents of Government Decision no. 1.086/2004 Setting Specific Increments and Per Diem, Accommodation and Meal Rights Due to Staff Participating in Missions outside the Territory of the Romanian State, as subsequently amended and supplemented, a regulatory act that is of a military nature, is not published in the Official Journal of Romania and is not communicated in any other way to beneficiaries of such rights, but the existence of which is mentioned in particular legislative documents published in the Official Journal, without including the content as such of this unpublished government decision”.
Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 21 March 2022.
Judgment no. 11 in case no. 183/1/2022
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.
Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (1) and (3) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 9/2017 on Budgetary Steps for 2017, Prorogation of Terms, and Amending and Supplementing Normative Acts, as approved with amendments and additions by Law no. 115/2017, Art. 7 para. (4) and (5) of Government Emergency Order no. 99/2016 on Steps for the Remuneration of Staff Paid from Public Funds, Prorogation of Terms, and on Tax and Budgetary Steps, as approved by Law no. 152/2017, as subsequently supplemented, and of Art. 12 para. (8) and (9) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 83/2014 on the Remuneration of Staff Paid from Public Funds for 2015, and on other Steps in the Public Expenditure Area, as approved with amendments and additions by Law no. 71/2015, as subsequently amended and supplemented, establishes that:
The increment for risk and mental overstrain from which antifraud inspectors of the Tax Antifraud General Directorate benefit is granted in the period between 1 March 2017 and 31 December 2017 in the percentage set by an Order of the President of the National Tax Administration Agency (A.N.A.F.) issued under the terms of Art. 7 para. (5) of Government Emergency Order no. 99/2016, and by observing the limits of the salary expenditure approved by A.N.A.F.’s budget.
Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing today, 21 March 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
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its hearing of 7 March 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 three appeals in the interest of the law, and returned the following judgments:
Judgment no. 6 in case no. 3123/1/2021
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. 39 para. (1) of Bailiffs’ Law no. 188/2000, as republished and as subsequently amended and supplemented, of those of Justice Minister’s Order no. 2.550/C/2006 Approving the Minimum and Maximum Fees for Services Rendered by Bailiffs, as subsequently amended, and of the stipulations of Art. 670 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, it establishes that:
The maximum fees of bailiffs, as set by Art. 39 para. (1) of Law no. 188/2000 and by Justice Minister’s Order no. 2.550/C/2006, do not include the value added tax specified by Art. 265 of the Tax Code (former Art. 125 of the Tax Code of 2003) related to services rendered by them under enforcement proceedings.
Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 7 March 2022.
Judgment no. 7 in case no. 40/1/2022
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. 4886 para. (l) of the Criminal Procedure Code, by reference to Art. 285 of the same Code and to Art. 154 of the Criminal Code, in cases involving challenges related to the length of court proceedings in case of acts the authors of which have not been identified (or are identifiable), despite the efforts necessary for this made by the criminal prosecution bodies, terms are set for the completion of criminal prosecution (which implies the identification of perpetrators), during which a new challenge may not be filed.
Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Rendered in public hearing today, 7 March 2022.
Judgment no.8 in case no.59/1/2022
The Panel admits the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Managing Board of Suceava Court of Appeals and, as a result, establishes that:
Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 39 para. (1) of Law no. 307/2006, the employed staff of voluntary/private emergency services is not included ope legis in the category of special work conditions, by reference to Art. 1 – 3 of Government Decision no. 1025/2003, and the stipulations of Art. 1 and Art. 6 of Government Decision no. 1294/2001 and of Art. 2 para. (2) of Interior Minister’s Order no. 283/2002 are not applicable to it.
Mandatory, pursuant to the stipulations of Art. 517 para. (4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing today, 7 March 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