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 session of 9 November 2020, 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 #28 in case #2458/1/2020

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

The interpretation and application of Art. 17 in Law # 136/2020 on Instating Public Health Measures in Situations of Epidemiological and Biological Risk, in the meaning of establishing the materially and procedurally jurisdictional court for trying the appeal brought against the judgment returned by the district court in disputes whose object is nullification of decisions to instate quarantine issued by the public health authority.

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

Returned in public session today, 9 November 2020.

Judgment #29 in case #2095/1/2020

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

1. The interpretation and application of Art. III para. (1) letter a) item vi in Law # 169/1997, amending and supplementing the Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991, as amended and supplemented, from the point of view of the evolution over time of cases of nullity, consideration shall be given to the regime of absolute virtual nullity and the rule of tempus regit actum.

2. In the interpretation and application of Art. 29 para. (2) in Law # 1/2000 on Reconstituting Ownership Rights over Farmland and Forests, required under the Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991 and Law #169/1997, as amended and supplemented, in the format they had prior to the amendments brought under Law #247/2005 on Reform in the Domains of Ownership and Justice, as well as some associated measures, as amended and supplemented, the Court establishes that:

The phrase “church fund of the denomination” refers exclusively to the assets of the component units of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and does not include the assets of the foundations established by the Church.

The phrase “had ownership of” refers to the existence, in the matter of the assets of the denomination entities mentioned at para. (2) of Art. 29, of a complete ownership right corresponding to the meaning resulting from the interpretation of Art. 480 in the 1864 Civil Code, and does not include particular historic formats of the ownership right.

3. In the interpretation and application of Art. 29 para. (31) in Law # 1/2000, in the format they had prior to the amendments brought under Law #261/2008 on amending and supplementing Art. 29 in Law # 1/2000 on Reconstituting Ownership Rights over Farmland and Forests, required under the Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991 and Law #169/1997, the Court establishes that the text of the law refers to the surface of land assigned as forest land which was part of the assets of, or was administered by, or assigned for use to, denomination entities as distinct and separate subjects of the law and which claimed ownership over such surface, and does not refer to such land as belonged, in the same ways, to the religious denomination those entities are part of.

4. Denies as inadmissible the claim to remove application of the absolute nullity sanction for the ownership right, based on Art. 1 in Additional Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the interpretation and application of this Convention.

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

Returned in public session today, 9 November 2020.

After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published din 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 26 October 2020, 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 #25 in case #1811/1/2020

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 55 in Government Emergency Order #80/2013 on the Judicial Stamp Tax, as amended and supplemented, the Court establishes that:

 In the case of the trials that started under the applicability of Law #146/1997 on the Judicial Stamp Tax, as amended and supplemented, it is the stipulations of that Law and not of Government Emergency Order #80/2013 that are applicable to judicial stamp tax owed for motions, accessory motions, incidental motions and procedural incidents as well as avenues of appeals whether ordinary or extra-ordinary.

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

Returned in public session today,26 October 2020.

Judgment #26 in case #2057/1/2020

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 18 para. (8) and (81) in Government Order #18/2009 on the Organization and Funding of Medical Residency, approved under Law #103/2012, as amended and supplemented and Art. 18 para. (1) in Government Emergency Order #103/2013 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds in the year 2014, as well as other measures in the domain of public expenditures, approved with supplements under Law #28/2014, as amended and supplemented, amounts paid by a medical facility as scholarship to a resident physician as per Government Emergency Order #103/2013 do not constitute an expenditure occasioned by the physician’s professional training in the meaning of Art. 18 para. (8) and (81) in Government Order #18/2009.

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

Returned in public session today,26 October 2020.

Judgment #27 in case #2245/1/2020

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Annex VIII Cap. II letter A, Section II, item 6, sub-item 6.2, letter a), item 1 in Framework Law #153/2017 correlated to the stipulations of Art. 38 para. (3), para. (4) and para. (6) in the same Law, the personnel in public facilities for veterinary medicine and food safety who are employed and work in the specialty of specific positions stipulated in the Appendix shall be entitled to hazard pay as regulated Framework Law #153/2017, as of the date the base pay, position-related pay and employment allowance become equal to or higher than those established for the year 2022, as a result of regulated pay raises.

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

Returned in public session today, 26 October 2020.

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 October 2020, 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 #24 in case #1373/1/2020

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

In case a judge is called upon to rule in an extra-ordinary avenue of appeal of disaffirmance brought against a judgment returned in yet another extra-ordinary avenue of appeal of disaffirmance, successively brought against their judgment in appeal or appeal on law, the stipulations of Art. 41 para. (1) First Thesis in the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable if the particular circumstances of the dispute clearly show the judge is not put in a situation of having to evaluate their own decision, directly or indirectly.

Under Art. 41 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code, the judge who returned the judgment in appeal is absolutely incompatible with ruling in the motion for review or motion for annulment brought against their judgment returned in the appeal on law challenging their judgment in appeal.

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

Returned in public session today, 19 October 2020.

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 14 September 2020, High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered five appeals in the interest of the law, and returned the following Judgments:

Judgment #19 in case #1372/1/2020

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

“Is transmitting public-interest information in electronic format to be performed against a fee or free of charge?”

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

Returned in public session today, 14 September 2020.

Judgment #20 in case #1374/1/2020

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:

1. Is it admissible to indicate new assets in a claim for compensation as under Art. 1 para. (2) in Law # 165/2013 on measures to complete the process of restitution, in kind or in equivalent, of buildings forfeited abusively during the period of the communist regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented, and Art. 221 para. (1) in the Rules for Implementation of Law #165/2013 on measures to complete the process of restitution, in kind or in equivalent, of buildings forfeited abusively during the period of the communist regime in Romania, approved under Government Decision #401/2013 as subsequently supplemented, ulterior to the first hearing with full legal procedure completed before the court of first instance, in view of Art. 204 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code?

2. Is it admissible to bring a claim for compensation, directly in appeal, regarding assets that were not indicated before the court of first instance, based on Art. 1 para. (2) in Law # 165/2013 and Art. 221 para. (1) in the Rules for Implementation of Law #165/2013, in view of Art. 478 para. (2) and (3) and Art. 479 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code, and what is the procedural act the claimant could use to bring such claim at the appeal stage?

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

Returned in public session today, 14 September 2020.

Judgment #21 in case #1375/1/2020

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

The interpretation and application of Art. 91 para. (1) and (2), corroborated with Art. 23 in Government Order #92/2003 on the Tax Procedure Code as republished, amended and supplemented, are that the 5-year statute of limitation of the tax body’s right to establish tax obligations in the form of profit tax and accessories thereof starts running as of the date of 1 January of the year subsequent to the tax year during which the taxable profit was derived which serves as the calculation basis for the profit tax owed by the taxpayer.

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

Returned in public session today, 14 September 2020.

Judgment #22 in case #1376/1/2020

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

In public-office disputes brought to compel the employer to pay outstanding salary rights, as well as when the employer failed to issue an administrative act or said act was not communicated to the public servant, the latter can bring the case directly before the administrative litigations court without it being necessary to previously require the employer to pay said rights.

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

Returned in public session today, 14 September 2020.

Judgment #23 in case #1468/1/2020

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

   In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 335 para. (1) in the Criminal Procedure Code concerning resumption in the case of reopening a criminal investigation the Court establishes that:

In the situation of a rejection of a solution proposed by a prosecutor from lower prosecutor’s offices or the specialist entities of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Review and Justice (National Anticorruption Department, Department for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism), the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Review and Justice does not in every case have the capacity that is specifically stipulated by Art. 335 para. (1) in the Criminal Procedure Code, which refers to “the prosecutor hierarchically superior to the one who proposed the solution.”

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

Returned in public session today 14 September 2020.

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 September 2020, 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 #18 in case #459/1/2020

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations at Art. 493 para. (1) letter a) in the Criminal Procedure Code the Court establishes that:

The prohibition to initiate or, as the case may be, suspend the procedure to dissolve or liquidate a legal entity does not also cover the dissolution or liquidation as part of the bankruptcy procedure as regulated by Law #85/2014 on Procedures to Prevent Insolvency and on Insolvency.

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

Returned in public session today, 7 September 2020.

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 20 July 2020, High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered 3 appeals in the interest of the law, and returned the following Judgments:

            Judgment #15 in case #1048/1/2020

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

The legal countersuit brought by the employer against the employee in the matter of restitution of amounts paid by the former to the second, voluntarily before the start of foreclosure, based on an executory judgment returned by a court of first instance which is subsequently overturned in appeal, has the legal nature of a labor dispute that comes under the stipulations of Art. 256 para. (1) in Law # 53/2003 of The Labor Code, as republished, amended and supplemented, and the material jurisdiction to try the case in first instance belongs to a Tribunal – Chamber for Labor Litigations and Social Benefits, as under Art. 208 and Art. 210 in the Law of Social Dialog #62/2011, as republished, amended and supplemented.

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

Returned in public session today, 20 July 2020.

 Judgment #16 in case #1134/1/2020

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

The interpretation and application of Art. 13 para. (2) in Government Order #2/2001 on the legal status of administrative violations, as approved with amendments and supplements under Law #180/2002, as amended and supplemented, corroborated with Art. 31 and with Art. 37 para. (5) in Law # 50/1991 on Authorizing Performance of Construction Work, as republished, amended and supplemented, the statute of limitations for administrative liability for such administrative violations as stipulated by Art. 26 para. (1) letter a) in Law # 50/1991, as republished, consisting in erecting, without a building permit, a structure that includes all the structural elements needed for it to be regarded as completed at the date of the violation, shall start as of the date the structured is completed de facto.

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

Returned in public session today,20 July 2020.

Judgment #17 in case #1135/1/2020

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 41 para. (1) and Art. 45 para. (2) Thesis I in Law # 85/2014 on Procedures to Prevent Insolvency and on Insolvency, Art. 260 para. (1) and (4) in the Tax Procedure Code, Art. 651 para. (1), Art. 714 para. (1) and Art. 719 para. (1) and (7) in the Civil Procedure Code, material jurisdiction to consider challenges to foreclosure engaged in by government-entity creditors based on Art. 143 para. (1) Final Thesis in Law # 85/2014 belongs to the syndic judge appointed for the insolvency procedure where the respective challenges are brought, as under Art. 45 para. (1) letter r) and para. (2) in Law # 85/2014.

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 997 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code, correlated with Art. 233 para. (1) letter a) and Art. 260 in the Tax Procedure Code, motions addressed to the syndic judge by order of the chair judge are admissible whose object is constituted of temporary measures to lift, suspend and provisionally suspend foreclosure measures undertaken by the relevant tax authorities in the cases where they had started the foreclosure on the basis of Art. 143 para. (1) Final Thesis in Law # 85/2014.

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

Returned in public session today,20 July 2020.

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 22 June 2020, 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 #14 in case #957/1/2020

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

In the uniform interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 472 and Art. 491 in the Civil Procedure Code, an applicable appeal or appeal on law cannot be restricted to the objects of the main appeal or appeal on law but can include any other findings that are part of the orders issued under the challenged judgment and/or their justifications.

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

Returned in public session today, 22 June 2020.

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...