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
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 18 January 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 Judgments:
Judgment #1 in case #2846/1/2020
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Craiova.
In interpreting the stipulations of Art. 160 para. (l) letter b) in Government Emergency Order #57/2019 on the Administrative Code, as subsequently amended and supplemented [Art. 15 para. (2) letter b) in Law #393/2004 on the Status of Locally Elected Officials, as subsequently amended and supplemented], Art. 91 para. (11) in Law #161/2003 on Certain Steps to Ensure Transparency in the Exercise of Public Dignities, of Public Office and in the Business Environment, and on Preventing and Punishing Corruption, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and Art. 25 para. (1) and (3) in Law #176/2010 on Integrity in the Exercise of Public Office and Dignities to amend and supplement Law #144/2007 on Establishing, Organization and Operation of the National Integrity Agency and also to amend and supplement other regulatory acts, as subsequently amended and supplemented, a Mayor’s term of office can be lawfully terminated even if it comes after the term of office during which a state of incompatibility was found on the basis of an assessment report issued by the National Integrity Agency and whose lawfulness was established through a final judgment returned by a court of law.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 18th of January 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 December 2020, 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 #30 in case #2558/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Ombudsman concerning: “uniform interpretation and application of Art. 65 para. (2) in Law #53/2003, as republished, in the matter of the phrase ‘genuine and serious case’ in the sense of establishing ‘whether a serious character of a termination of position involves, in the situation of a reduction in the number of several identical positions existing with the employer, the latter having to apply certain criteria for differentiation/selection in order to justify their specific selection of the employee/-s to be terminated out of the total number of employees engaged in identical or similar work.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of December 2020.
Judgment #31 in case #2551/1/2020
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.
1. In the uniform interpretation and application of Art. 51 para. (2) first thesis, para. (3), para. (8), para. (9) and para. (11) in Law #94/1992 on the Organization and Operation of the Court of Audit, as republished, amended and supplemented, corroborated with Art. 2 in the Implementation Rules on calculation of the service pension as under Law #94/1992 on the Organization and Operation of the Court of Audit, as republished, amended and supplemented by Law #7/2016 and Law #145/2017, sanctioned by Order of the Chair of the Court of Audit and the Chair of the National Public Pensions Office #285/138/2016, as amended and supplemented: the former external public auditors who, on the date of meeting the standard conditions for retirement, were engaged in a different occupation, as well as former external public auditors who, on the date of filing their application, had retired for the age limit and from a different occupation, cannot receive the service pension stipulated by Art. 51 para. (3) in Law #94/1992 for a minimum term of service of 4 years as external public auditor with the Court of Audit.
2. In the uniform interpretation and application Art. 51 para. (14) in Law #94/1992, corroborated with Art. 9 para. (3) letter c) in the Implementation Rules approved under Order #285/138/2016: the Court of Audit is not under an obligation to issue the standard certification document needed for applications for service pension by persons who do not meet the legal requirements to receive service pension as former external public auditors.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of December 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 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
