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

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.

High Court of Cassation and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 27 september 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 #18 in Case # 1838/1/2021

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 45 para. (5) in the Criminal Code, in the field of the criminal treatment of the concurrent infringements, the application of the accessory penalty implies that it is established first in addition to the the initial principle penalty and then in addition to the resulting principle penalty.

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

Returned in public session today, the 27th of september 2021.

Decision #19 in Case #1922/1/2021

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

In the interpretation of Art. 382 letter h) and Art. 536 in Government Emergency Ordinance No 57/2019 on the Administrative Code, as amended and supplemented, Art. 1 letter p), first sentence of Social dialog Act No 62/2011, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented and of Art. 23(1) in Law No 550/2004 on the organization and functioning of the Romanian Gendarmerie, as amended and supplemented, the judicial material jurisdiction to settle in the first instance cases concerning the obligation of the public institutions within the Romanian Gendarmerie to pay the wages to their military personnel belongs to the Chambers/ specialized panels in matters of labor conflicts within the courts.

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

Returned in public session today, the 27th of september 2021.

Decision #20 in Case # 1696/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and consequently establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 651 para. (1), art. 666, art. 712, art. 714 and art. 112 in the the Code of civil procedure, the court of enforcement having territorial jurisdiction to rule on the action against the execution itself made by one of the debtors covered by the enforceable title, shall be the court of first instance which has granted the forced execution of that enforceable title, unless the law provides otherwise.

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

Returned in public session today, the 27th of september 2021.

Decision #21 in Case # 1694/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 107, art. 113 para. (1) point 9 şi art. 116 in the the Code of civil procedure, it establishes that the term “place of harm” in claims brought by collective management organizations of copyright, having as an object the obligation of the users to pay the remuneration due for the public communication / unauthorized broadcasting of the phonograms or published for commercial purposes, or their reproduction and/or audiovisual artistic performance, corresponds to the place where the unlawful act is committed and not to the place where the loss is paid.

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

Returned in public session today, the 27th of september 2021.

Summary of Civil ruling in file No 1133/1/2021      

Pursuant to Article 442 of the Code of Civil procedure, the clerical errors contained in the justification, in the summary and in the operative part of Decision No 12 of 28 June 2021, delivered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – The Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law in case No 1133/1/2021, are rectified, in that, in paragraphs 11 and 89 for the justification, in the summary and in the operative part of the decision, instead of “art. 66 of Law No 24/2000”, it would be “Art. 68 of Law No 24/2000”.

Returned in the Council Chamber today, the 27th of september 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 13 september 2021 the High Court of Review 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 #16 in Case #1325/1/2021

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 stipulations of Art. 11 para. (3) in Law #80/1995 on the by-law of the military personnel, as amended and supplemented correlated with Art. 60 in Law #223/2015 on military state pensions as amended and supplemented, military pensioners, awarded with the order “Military Merit”, 3rd, 2nd and 1st classes, receive an increase of 10%, 15% and 20% of the pension; however, by applying this increase, the net pension cannot be higher than the average of the net monthly pay/salaries corresponding to the gross monthly pay/salaries included in the pension base.

Denies as inadmissible the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Bucharest concerning the interpretation of the stipulations of Art. 108, correlated with Art. 28 and Art. 30 of Law No 223/2015 on Military State Pensions, as amended and supplemented, concerning the increase for the contribution to the supplementary Pension Fund, in the sense that it falls within the pension basis, being, consequently, subject to the ceiling provided for by Art. 30 of the same law, or that it is a right which is not part of the pension, and must therefore be added to its amount.

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

Returned in public session today, the 13th of september 2021.

Decision #17 in Case #1376/1/2020

Denies as inadmissible the application made by the Cârcei Elena concerning the clarification of the operative part of Decision No 22 of 14 September 2020, delivered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – The Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law in case No 1.376/1/2020, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no 1.208 of 10 december 2020.

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

Returned in public session today, the 13th of september 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 Review and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

 

In its session of 28 June 2021 the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each Case, considered six appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:

 

Decision #10 in Case #800/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Alba Iulia and consequently establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 28 in Law #50/1991 on Construction Works Permits, republished, as amended and supplemented, in the hypothesis where the party has not started or completed the procedure for legal compliance within the required deadline, and the authority has not yet obtained an order to demolish the structure, the deadline stipulated in the findings report concerning the violation shall be construed as a recommendation.

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

Returned in public session today, the 28th of June 2021.

 

 Decision #11 in Case #1128/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Review and Justice and establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 37 in the Criminal Code, in the hypothesis of finding that a final conviction exists for a crime in continued form, the Court that tries actions or inactions that are part of the constitutive contents of that same crime shall proceed to recalculating the sentence by considering the entirety of the criminal violation and shall establish a single punishment that cannot be lighter than the one ordered previously, will cancel the forms of sentence service ordered for the previous conviction and order new ones in accordance to its judgment or, as the case may be, shall find the sentence has been served.

Obligatory, as under Art. 474 para. (4) in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, the 28th of June 2021.

 

Decision #12 in Case #1133/1/2021

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 311, Art. 32 para. (5) letter a), Art. 39, Art. 44, Art. 45, Art. 47 para. (1) and (2), Art. 56 para. (1), (4), (6) and (7) and Art. 64 para. (3) in Law #350/2001 on Land Development and Urbanism, as amended and supplemented, correlated with Art. 66 in Law #24/2000 on Rules of Legal Writing for the Development of Regulatory Acts, republished, as amended and supplemented, the Local Council decision to approve an area development plan constitutes an administrative act with regulatory power.

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

Returned in public session today, the 28th of June 2021

 

Decision #13 in Case #1238/1/2021

Denies as inadmissible the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Braşov, on the following point of law:

What is the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 60 para. (2) in Law #263/2010 on the Uniform Public Pensions System, as amended and supplemented, specifically can the reduction of the standard retirement age as under Art. 58 be cumulated with that in the stipulations of Art. 55 in Law #263/2010.

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

Returned in public session today, the 28th of June 2021.

 

Decision #14 in Case #1394/1/2021

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 49 para. (2) in the Civil Procedure Code, filing a motion to challenge the judges before or after the start of any courtroom proceedings does not prevent performance of the procedural acts during the trial, nor the trial on the merits, but only the return of the judgment pending resolution of the motion to challenge the judges.

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

Returned in public session today, the 28th of June 2021.

 

Decision #15 in Case #1127/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Alba Iulia.

In the uniform interpretation of the stipulations of Art. 38 para. (3) letter a) and para. (6) in Framework Law #153/2017 salaries for personnel paid from public funds, as amended and supplemented, correlated with Art. 4 and 5 in Chapter VIII Section I of Appendix V to the same Law, the amount of extra pay granted to ancillary staff of the courts of law and prosecutor’s offices attached thereto cannot exceed the limit set by Art. 25 in the same Law, in correlation to the credit manager who establishes the amount of pay rights.

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

Returned in public session today, the 28th of June 2021.

 

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 7 June 2021 the High Court of Review 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 #9 in Case #3375/1/2020

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Constanţa and establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 4 para. (1) in the Law of Administrative Litigation #554/2004, as amended and supplemented, a motion of unlawfulness can also be raised concerning administrative acts with an individual character that were adopted or issued prior to the enactment of Law #554/2004.

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

Returned in public session today, the 7th of June 2021.

 

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 17 May 2021, the High Court of Review 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:

Judgment #8 in Case #48/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Constanţa.

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 135 and Art. 136 in the Civil Procedure Code, corroborated with the stipulations of Art. 54 in Law #304/2004 on Judicial Organization as republished with subsequent amendments and supplements, the Court establishes that:

The judicial panel that has jurisdiction to try the conflict of jurisdictions arisen in the appeal on merits or appeal on law shall be constituted as the law requires for the procedural stage of the Case where it arose, except for such conflicts as the law attributes to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Review and Justice and which shall be tried by 3-Justice panels as under Art. 31 para. (2) in Law #304/2004 or by 5-Justice panels in the situation stipulated at Art. 136 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

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

Returned in public session today, the 17th of May, 2021

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 12 April 2021, 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 appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments

Judgment #5 in Case #3373/1/2020

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Constanţa and consequently establishes that:

“In the interpretation of the stipulations of Art. 96 para. (1) and para. (2) letter b), Art. 100 para. (3), Art. 101 para. (3), Art. 102 para. (3) and Art. 109 para. (9) in Government Emergency Order #195/2002 on Driving on Public roads, as republished with subsequent amendments and supplements, corroborated with the stipulations of Art. 5 para. (5), Art. 21 para. (3) and Art. 34 para. (1) in Government Order #2/2001 on the Legal Treatment of Infractions, enacted with amendments and supplements as Law #180/2002, as amended and supplemented, the court of law called upon to rule on a challenge filed against a fine for a traffic violation which carried the additional penalty of a temporary restriction of the right to drive a car, a farm or forest tractor, or a streetcar, does not have the ability to examine the proportionality of such additional penalty.”

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

Returned in public session today, the 12th of April 2021

 Judgment #6 in Case #108/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought The Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Alba Iulia and consequently establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 55 para. (3) in Law #293/2004 on the Special-Status Public Servants in the National Administration of Penitentiaries, as republished with subsequent amendments and supplements, a Day Order in the Facility whereby an officer is tasked to perform additional responsibilities that are specific to a managerial position does not constitute an appointment to such position similar to that which is to be found in Art. 55 para. (3) in Law #293/2004.

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

Returned in public session today, the 12th of April 2021

Judgment #7 in Case #280/1/2021

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought The Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Alba Iulia and consequently establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 120 para. (5) in Law #46/2008 – The Forestry Code, as republished with subsequent amendments and supplements, in the absence of developed guidelines, regulations, instructions and best practices, as under Art. 115 para. (1) in the same Law, the forestry personnel covered by those stipulations shall be entitled to a risk bonus in the amount of 25% of their base pay.

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

Returned in public session today, the 12th of April 2021

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 15 March 2021, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered two appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:

Judgment #3 in case #3345/1/2020

Denies as inadmissible the request for an appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Cluj on the following point of law: Is the nominalistic principle, regulated under Art. 1578 in the Civil Code of 1864 and Art. 1488 para. (1) in the New Civil Code, also applicable to loan contracts concluded on the territory of Romania between a consumer and a provider of financial services, in the case where the borrowed amount is expressed in foreign currency and repayment of the loan by periodical (monthly) payments is to be performed in the same currency”?

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

Returned in public session today, the 15th of March 2021

Judgment #4 in case #3397/1/2020

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Cluj and establishes that:

In applying the stipulations of Art. 45 para. (1) letter a) and Art. 43 para. (7) in Law #85/2014 corroborated with Art. 480 para. (2) and para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code, the Court of Appeals, before which the appeal was filed against the decision of the syndic judge to deny a motion to transition the debtor to the bankruptcy procedure or under which a reorganization plan is confirmed, shall sustain the appeal, repeal de decision and will send the case to the syndic judge with a mandatory order that the debtor be transitioned into bankruptcy.

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

Returned in public session today, the 15th of March 2021

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 8 February 2021, the High Court of Review 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:

Judgment #2 in case #.2969/1/2020

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Ombudsman and establishes that:

In the interpretation and application of the phrase “until a Judgment is returned in the challenge brought against foreclosure” in the text of Art. 719 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code, suspension of foreclosure is limited in time up to the date a court of first instance rules  in the challenge brought against foreclosure.

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

Returned in public session today, the 8th of February 2021.

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

Loading...