Press releases concerning the judgments handed down in appeal of the interest of the law

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:

  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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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

High Court of Review and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

 

In its hearing of 21 February 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. 4 in case no. 3036/1/2021 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Managing Board of Suceava Court of Appeals concerning the following law matters: 

Whether based on the interpretation and application of Art. 430 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the concept of res judicata authority does not allow for the existence of discrepancies between a judgment’s enactment terms and its considerations, except for cases in which such discrepancies are justified by the applicability of the non reformatio in pejus principle in the case. 

Whether the wording “the situations expressly stipulated by law,” contained in Art. 481 of the Civil Procedure Code, in which the law allows for a possibility to aggravate the situation of a party in its own appeal, by derogation from the non reformatio in pejus principle, should be interpreted in the sense that the scope of such cases falls only under the exception to res judicata authority, by applying Art. 432, second indent, of the Civil Procedure Code or, on the contrary, under other absolute public order processual exceptions (of substance or of procedure) able to invalidate the lawfulness of a judgment rendered by the lower court by disregarding some imperative provisions intended to secure and protect social security and legal order.

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

Rendered in public hearing today, 21 February 2022.

Judgment no. 5 in case no. 3065/1/2021 

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. 684 and 687 of Law no. 95/2006 and of Art. 94 point 1 item k) and Art. 95 point 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the substantive jurisdiction to adjudicate cases under which the court is requested to order the respondents, on a tortious ground, to pay material and/or moral damages for malpractice in a situation where the procedure regulated by the stipulations of Art. 679 – 685 of Law no. 95/2006 has not been followed rests on district courts.

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

Returned in public hearing today, 21 February 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 February 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. 3 in case no. 2972/1/2021

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, as a result, establishes that:

Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 13 para. (1) item a) of Government Emergency Order no. 27/2006 on Remuneration and other Rights of Judges, Prosecutors and other Categories of Staff in the Justice System, as approved by Law no. 45/2007, as subsequently amended, for the calculation of the per diem from which judges, prosecutors, the staff assimilated to them and assistant magistrates benefit when they are temporarily transferred or seconded to a locality other than that of their domicile, only the time effectively worked shall be considered, and not all calendar days included in the calculation of the delegation or secondment period, as applicable.

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

Returned in public hearing today, 7 February 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

 

In its hearing of 31 January 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. 1 in case no. 2905/1/2021

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. 603 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, the wording “after checking (…) whether the requirements are complied with” refers to a check of the formal requirements applicable to arbitral awards, not to those applicable to its content.

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

Rendered in public hearing today, 31 January 2022.

Judgment no. 2 in case no. 2943/1/2021

The Panel admits the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Managing Board of Cluj Court of Appeals and, as a result, establishes that:

Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 416 para. (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, in case of optional suspension, ordered by the court under Art. 413 para. (1) point 1 of the Civil Procedure Code until the Court of Justice of the European Union renders a preliminary ruling for a request from other national court or from a court of another member state of the European Union, the sue petition or, as the case may be, the mean of appeal, does not become obsolete in cases where the interested party fails to request for the case re-docketing within 6 months after the date when the preliminary ruling is rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the court has an obligation to decide on the resumption of proceedings ex officio.

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

Returned in public hearing today, 31 January 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 6 December 2021, 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. 27 in case no. 2618/1/2021

The Panel admits the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Managing Board of Bucharest Court of Appeals and, as a result, establishes that:

Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 131 para. (1), Art. 714 para. (1) and Art. 719 para. (7) of the Civil Procedure Code, a court vested with a request for temporary suspension of enforcement has an obligation to check its jurisdiction in compliance with the general provisions, and if it establishes that it has no jurisdiction to settle the case on the merits, it must render a decision on declining its jurisdiction in favor of the enforcement court.

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

Rendered in public hearing today, 6 December 2021.

Judgment no. 28 in case no. 2705/1/2021

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, as a result, establishes that:

Based on the consistent interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 58 para. (5) of Law no. 119/1996 on Civil Status Documents, as republished, amended and supplemented, of Art. 94 point 1 item b) of Law no. 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code, as republished, amended and supplemented (both in the version prior to Law no. 310/2018 and in the subsequent version of this law), of Art. 100 para. (2) and (4) of Law no. 287/2009 on the Civil Code, of Art. 2 para. (1) item c), f) and i) and para. (2) and of Art. 5 para. (2) of Law no. 554/2004 on Administrative Litigation, as amended and supplemented, the substantive and procedural jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for annulment/challenges filed against decisions issued by mayors in settling requests for the correction of civil status documents in first instance rests with district courts.

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

Returned in public hearing today, 6 December 2021. 

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 Cassation and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 15 November 2021 the High Court of Review 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 #23 in Case #2318/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and consequently establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of art. 38 para. 1 in Government Ordinance No 64/2006 on remuneration and other rights of civil servants with special status in the prison administration system, approved with amendments by Law No 462/2006, with subsequent amendments and art. 150 para. 1 and 2 in Law No 53/2003 – Labor Code, republished, as amended and supplemented, when establishing the monetary rights to prison guards for the period of rest leave, it should be taken into account the bonuses for heavy working conditions, harmful or dangerous they have received during their period of service, corresponding to the time worked in the places of work concerned.

Obligatory, as under Art.  517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, the 15th of November 2021.

Decision #24 in Case #2453/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Bucharest and consequently establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 5 para. 1 and art. 8 in Annex I, Chapter I letter B in Framework Law No 153/2017 on the payroll of staff paid from public funds, as amended and supplemented, the teaching staff shall be entitled to a merit gradation or an increase of head teacher from the date on which the basic salary is determined in accordance with the annexs in this law, that is the date on which the basic salary becomes equal to or greater than that established in accordance with the law for 2022.

Until that time, from 1 January 2019, these rights will be taken into account in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 para. 41 of the framework law No 153/2017, by applying them to the basic salary provided for by the law for 2022 less the basic salary for december 2018 for the determination of the installments of the increase.

Obligatory, as under Art.  517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, the 15th of November 2021.

Decision #25 in Case #2469/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Iaşi and consequently establishes that:

In the interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 166 in the Methodological norms for the implementation of the provisions on the award of the public procurement contract/framework agreement in Law No 98/2016 on public procurement, approved by Government Decision No 395/2016, as amended and supplemented and of the provisions of Article 971 in Government Decision No 925/2006 for the approval of the implementing norms for the provisions on the award of public contracts in Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006 on the award of public contracts, public works concession contracts and service concession contracts, as amended and supplemented in accordance with art. 2 para. 1 letter c in Administrative Court Law No 554/2004, as amended, jurisdiction for the settlement of disputes for the annulment of the document establishing the finding which contains information on the failure of the contract by the associate contractor/contractor and any damage to the contract shall lie with the civil court, under the terms of art. 53 para. 11 in Law No 101/2016 on remedies and appeals for the award of public procurement, sectoral contracts and works and service concession contracts, as well as for the organization and functioning of the National Board of Solving Complaints, with subsequent amendments and supplements, and of art. 8 para. 2 in Administrative Court Law No 554/2004, as amended and supplemented.

Obligatory, as under Art.  517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, the 15th of November 2021.

Decision #26 in Case #2382/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and consequently establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 13 para.1 letter a in Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2002, the offense of abuse of office provided for in art. 132 in Law No 78/2000 in relation to art. 297 in the Criminal Code, which caused material damage of less than or equal to the equivalent in lei of 200.000 euro committed by a person whose quality does not determine the effect of the provisions of art. 13 para. 1 letter b in Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2002, is the competence of the non-specialized prosecutor’s office, and not the National Anti-corruption Directorate.

The provisions of art. 13 para. 1 letter a second sentence in Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2002, relating to the value of the amount or of the property which is the object of the corruption offense, are not incident in the case of the offense of abuse of office provided for in art. 132 in Law No 78/2000 in relation to Article 297 in the Criminal Code.

Obligatory, as under Art.  517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, the 15th of November 2021.

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 11 October 2021 the High Court of Review 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 #22 in Case #2057/1/2021

Denies as inadmissible the application made by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Bucharest concerning the following law matter:

The uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 29 para.(1) letter (i) in the Government Emergency Ordinance No 80/2013 on stamp court fees, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in cases in which, following the death of the perpetrator, a solution of dismissal is returned by the public prosecutor.

Obligatory, as under Art.  517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, the 11th of October 2021.

 

After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.

Loading...