High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 21 October 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered ten requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgement no. 50 in Case no. 552/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Buzău – Second Civil, Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in case no. 779/200/2022 and, as a result, establishes that:
In the interpretation and application of Article 628 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court of enforcement shall determine interest, penalties or other amounts that are due by operation of law to the creditor, in accordance with Article 1.535 of the Civil Code or other special legal provisions, also in the event that the creditor claims late payment penalties stipulated in the contract.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 51 in Case no. 1607/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Braşov – Civil Chamber, in case no. 1734/62/2023, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:
In the interpretation and application of Article 58, c) of Law no. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the calculation of the full contribution period required to be completed by insured persons with a medium disability also includes the assimilated periods provided for in Art. 49 para. (1) lit. b) and c) of Law no. 263/2010 or the additional period of seniority in employment, granted for periods completed in group I or group II of employment, on the basis of the legislation prior to April 1, 2001, referred to in Art. 17 para. (1) of Law no. 263/2010.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 52 in Case no. 1628/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – Second Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in case no. 9389/3/2024, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:
For staff who have reached the level of the pay grid in 2022, the bonus for harmful working conditions set out in the point a) of the sole article of Annex no. 1 of the Framework Regulation on the establishment of workplaces, categories of staff, the concrete size of the bonus for working conditions, as well as the conditions for granting it for the occupational family of budgetary functions “Administration” of the central public administration, approved by Government Decision no. 917/2017, is subject to the ceiling regulated by Article II of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 115/2023 on some fiscal-budgetary measures in the field of public spending, for fiscal consolidation, combating tax evasion, amending and supplementing certain normative acts, as well as for the extension of certain terms, with subsequent amendments and additions, to the extent that the staff occupies the same position and performs its work under the same conditions.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 53 in Case no. 1630/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Alba Iulia – First Civil Chamber, in case no. 698/107/2023, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:
In the interpretation and application of Article 82 para. (3) in relation to the provisions of Articles 86 and 104 para. (1) of Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and public prosecutors, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the period during which a police officer, with a degree in legal sciences, has performed specialized legal duties may be taken into account for the purposes of granting the service pension established in Article 82 para. (3), if the analysis of the fulfilment of these duties proves that the requirements of Article 44 para. (1) of Law no. 92/1992 on Judicial Organization, republished, with subsequent amendments.
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request concerning the clarification of the second question of law, respectively „Is there any impediment arising from the provisions of Article 51 para. (3) of Law no. 303/2004 and Article 192 para. (1) of Law no. 263/2010, that the periods during which a person who has held specialized legal functions (police officer) and which have been valorised by the award of a State military pension, may subsequently obtain the award of a service pension (magistrate), under the conditions of Article 82 para. (3) of Law no. 303/2004?”
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 54 in Case no. 1641/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – The VIIIth Labor and social security litigation Chamber, în case no. 4955/3/2024, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
The conditions for awarding the salary increase provided by the Order of the Minister of Internal Affairs no. 35/2019 on the conditions for establishing the salary increase for additional work performed by staff with special status, as well as special activities of an operational or unforeseen nature, by reference to the provisions of Articles 5, 6 of this normative act, in the situation where the additional work actually performed exceeds the budget funds allocated for this purpose.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 55 in Case no. 1644/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – The VIIIth Labor and social security litigation Chamber, in cases nos. 3496/3/2024 and 3623/3/2024, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the point of law concerning on the granting of bonuses for 2021, in accordance with Article 125 para. (1) b) of the Collective Employment Agreement no. 81/175/768 of November 9, 2018 and the granting of holiday vouchers for 2021, in accordance with Art. (2) e) of the same agreement.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 56 in Case no. 1857/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Giurgiu – Civil Chamber, in case no. 321/122/2024 and by the Court of Appeal of Cluj – Third Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in case no. 2619/117/2023, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the point of law concerning recalculation of the allowances for paid rest leave by including in the base of the calculation of the food allowance received by the applicants as civil servants.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 57 in Case no. 68/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Oradea – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 2.705/111/2022, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:
In the interpretation of the provisions of Article 266 para. (41) of Law no. 207/2015 on the Code of Fiscal Procedure, in conjunction with the provisions of Art. 23 para. (3) and (4) of the Code of Fiscal Procedure, in the particular hypothesis of the incidence of the provisions of Article 181 of Law no. 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings, in the form in force prior to the amendment made by Law no. 216/2022, in the event of the cancellation of tax liabilities owed by the individual debtor in the course of business activities on a self-employed basis, following the debtor’s removal from the register in which it was registered, the incidence of Article 181 of Law no. 85/2014 prevents the individual from taking over the liabilities.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 58 in Case no. 1317/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Neamţ – First Civil and Administrative Litigation Chamber, in case no. 5367/291/2023, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:
In the interpretation of Art. 1.108 para. (2), Art. 43 para. (3), Art. 41 para. (3) and art. 144 of the Civil Code, the expressed acceptance of the inheritance by a minor who lacks the legal capacity to exercise his or her rights is an act of disposition and requires the consent of the tutelary court.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
Judgement no. 59 in Case no. 1569/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Ialomiţa – Civil Chamber, in case no. 325/98/2024, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
The provisions of Art. (2) of Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations, approved with amendments and additions by Law no. 246/2005, as subsequently amended and supplemented, according to which the subsidiary is governed by its own board of directors, shall be interpreted as meaning that the board of directors of the subsidiary must be distinct (in terms of its composition) from the board of directors of the foundation which set up the respective subsidiary?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.
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 7 October 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered two requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgement no. 47 in Case no. 1192/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Suceava – First Civil Chamber, in affaires no. 2450/203/2022 and no. 1005/203/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
„Whether, in the interpretation and application of Article 906 para. (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
- the criteria taken into account by the court in determining the late payment penalties ordered by the judgment delivered under the provisions of Article 906 para. (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure may be analysed and taken into account for the reduction of the penalty when challenging the enforcement of any of the judgments issued on the basis of Article 906 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, regardless of whether or not the debtor has fulfilled the obligation to execute and even if they have not proved the existence of any good reasons justifying the delay in execution;
- the late payment penalties established by any of the judgments delivered under the provisions of Article 906 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure may also be reduced when the debtor partially performs the obligation to execute and proves the existence of serious grounds justifying the partial delay in performance;
- the late payment penalties established by any of the judgments delivered pursuant to Article 906 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure may still be enforced where the creditor himself holds an enforceable title by which he has been personally authorized to discharge, at the debtor’s expense, the obligation to perform the obligation imposed on the debtor.”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 7 October 2024.
Judgement no. 48 in Case no. 1393/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bacău – First Civil Chamber, in affaires no. 5613/270/2019/a1*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“Whether the court has ruled on the claim for the granting of court fees, but omitted to rule on a category of fees requested and proven by documents submitted in the file (for example, the fees owed to the court expert), the party whose claim was omitted from the judgment may remedy this omission by filing a request for supplementing the claim, under the conditions of Article 444 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or by rectification of the judgment provided for in Article 442 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure?”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 7 October 2024.
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 16 September 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered six requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgement no. 39 in Case no. 989/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber and, in interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 341 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code and in relation to the provisions of Articles 74 and 75 of the Civil Code, establishes that:
The evidence consisting of a recording of a telephone conversation between an employee and another employee or a representative of the employer, submitted in a legal dispute against the employer, is admissible, even if the recording was made without the consent and/or prior information of the other party, provided that a fair balance is struck between the right to present evidence, on the one hand, and the right to privacy, on the other, in the sense that the granting of the evidence must be indispensable for the exercise of the right to present evidence and must be strictly proportionate to that purpose.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.
Judgement no. 40 in Case no. 1038/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – VIII Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in case no. 6533/3/2022, and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art.39 para. (1) and (4) in relation to Article 6 lit. a), b) and c) of the Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of personnel paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, when determining the maximum level of remuneration in payment for similar positions, the salary rights recognized to other employees by definitive court rulings that have interpreted and applied generally applicable legal rules, cannot be taken into account, if that interpretation has been subsequently invalidated by a binding decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice delivered in a clarification of certain points of law.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.
Judgement no. 41 in Case no. 1504/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Covasna – Civil Chamber in case no. 582/119/2024, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 106 para. (1), Art. 144 and Art. 146 para. (3) of the Labor Code, Art. 220 para. (1) and (5) of the Law No. 198/2023 on Pre-University Education, as subsequently amended and supplemented, respectively Art. 267 para. (1) and art. 270 of the National Education Law no. 1/2011, as amended and supplemented, in relation to Art. 5 para. (1) of the Methodological Norms on taking vacation leave for teaching, management, guidance and control and research personnel in public education, approved by Order of the Minister of Education no. 4.050/2021, establishes that:
In-service teachers who also carry out hourly-paid work by cumulating individual employment contracts at the same pre-university educational establishment do not benefit from additional paid vacation leave for the time effectively worked on an hourly-paid basis, or from compensation corresponding to the vacation leave days owed and not taken at the time of cessation of the individual fixed-term employment contract.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.
Judgement no. 42 in Case no. 1526/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Suceava – First Civil Chamber, in affaire no. 4380/86/2023, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Whether the provisions of Article 211 para. (4) of Law no. 303/2022 regarding the statute of judges and public prosecutors, in its original form, according to which ‘persons who have at least 25 years of seniority solely in the duties listed in para. (1) may retire at the age of 60 and receive a service pension, even if they have another occupation at the time of retirement”, applies to former judges/prosecutors who have such seniority, without any distinction between the functions listed in Art. 211 para. (1) (“at least 25 years’ seniority in the positions of judge, prosecutor, judge of the Constitutional Court, assistant magistrate at the High Court of Cassation and Justice and at the Constitutional Court, specialized legal staff assimilated to judges and prosecutors, financial judge, financial prosecutor or accounts counsellor of the jurisdictional section of the Court of Auditors, lawyer, legal specialized staff in the former state arbitrations, court clerk holding a law degree, legal adviser or jurisconsult”), in accordance with the principle ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.
Judgement no.43 in Case no. 1505/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Vâlcea – First Civil Chamber in case no. 414/90/2024 and by the Tribunal of Bucureşti – The VIIIth Labor and social security litigation Chamber, in affaires no. 5224/3/2024, no. 7582/3/2024 and no. 4204/3/2024, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently establishes that:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 38 para. (3) of the Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of personnel paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the gross amount of the base salaries, respectively of the employment allowances within the occupational family of budgetary functions “Justice”, established by reference to the sectoral reference value of 605.225 RON, shall be increased, as of January 1, 2018, by 25% compared to the level granted for December 2017, to the extent that the personnel concerned performs their work under the same conditions and the employers have not already granted this increase.
Dismisses the remaining related complaints as inadmissible.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.
Judgement no.44 in Case no. 475/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Constanţa – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, by its Judgment of January 8, 2024, rendered in Case no. 1.654/88/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, consequently, establishes that:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 60 para. (5), Art. 1381 and Art. 154 para. (1), r) of Law no. 227/2015 on the Tax Code (form in force as of January 1, 2021), employers whose registered business activity is “Manufacture of metal structures and component parts of metal structures” – CAEN Code 2511, shall apply the tax facilities only for those activities directly related to activities in the construction sector, defined as such in Section F – “Construction” of Order no. 337/2007.
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 13 para. (6) of the Code of Fiscal Procedure, the previous findings of a territorial labor inspectorate, requiring an employer to pay the gross minimum wage guaranteed for the construction sector, do not constitute grounds for subsequently requiring the tax authority to recognize the right to the application of tax facilities, governed by Article 60 para. (5), Article 1381 and Article 154 para. (1), r) of Law no. 227/2015 on the Tax Code.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.
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 17 June 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered five requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgement no. 31 in Case no. 215/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Mureş – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 7054/320/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
The provisions of point 12 of Annex no. 1 to Law no. 46/2008 – Forestry Code, republished, as amended and subsequently completed, in relation to the legal provisions interpreted by Decision no. 3 of May 12, 2014 issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – The Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 445 of June 18, 2014, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of rangers employed under an individual employment contract, it is necessary to incur patrimonial civil liability, pursuant to Law no. 53/2003 – Labor Code, republished, as amended and completed, in order to obtain an enforceable title.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 17 June 2024.
Judgement no. 32 in Case no. 832/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 2006/87/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting the provisions of Art. (1) of Law no. 49/1999 on I.O.V.R. pensions, with subsequent amendments and additions, the reference rule which refers to the conditions for granting a survivor’s pension for the children of those who died or disappeared during the war, as well as for the children of those who at the date of their death were I.O.V.R. pensioners, as war injured or disabled, also implies the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Article 84 of Law no. 263/2010 on the unitary public pension system, with subsequent amendments and additions.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 17 June 2024.
Judgement no. 33 in Case no. 855/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – VII Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 23382/3/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
The interpretation of Article 75 para. (1) of Law no. 53/2003 – Labor Code, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, for the purposes of determining how the minimum period of 20 working days laid down in Article 75 para. (1) of Labor Code and whether the working day on which the notice is served on the employee may be considered to be the first of the 20 working days.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 17 June 2024.
Judgement no. 34 in Case no. 829/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Mureş – Civil, in Case no. 18/289/2022 for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
The provisions of the Article 452 in relation to the provisions of Article 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as interpreted by Decision No. 9 of March 30, 2020, rendered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the resolution of appeals in the interest of the law, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 548 of June 25, 2020, shall be interpreted as meaning that, if legal fees have been claimed before the first instance court, but no proof of payment of those fees has been provided by the date of the adjournment of the hearing on the merit of the case, such proof may be provided, by means of new documents, in the appeal filed against the decision rejecting the request of said legal fees.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 17 June 2024.
Judgement no. 35 in Case no. 853/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – V Civil Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
In interpreting the Article 43 para. (2) of Law no. 85/2014, in a situation where the party personally receives the judgment, in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure, prior to its publication in the BPI, does the time limit for appeal run from the date of receiving the judgment, in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure, or from the date of publication in the BPI?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 17 June 2024.
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 3 June 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered three requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgement no. 27 in Case no. 682/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Cluj –The 3rd Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 3086/100/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
If the provisions contained in Art I para. (1) to (3) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 226/2020 on certain fiscal-budgetary measures and for amending and supplementing certain legislative acts and extending certain time limits, as subsequently amended, in Article I para. (1) and (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 130/2021 on certain fiscal-budgetary measures, the extension of certain deadlines and the amendment and completion of certain legislative acts, as amended and supplemented also in Article I of Government Emergency Ordinance No 168/2022 on certain fiscal-budgetary measures, the extension of certain deadlines, as well as the amendment and completion of certain regulatory acts, as subsequently amended and supplemented, partially derogates from the transitional application mechanism of Framework Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of employees paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, governed by Article 38 of this Framework Law, in that it does not alter the system governing the determination of basic salaries in the ‘Administration’ occupational family contained in Article 11 of Framework Law No 153/2017.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 3 June 2024.
Judgement no. 28 in Case no. 757/1/2024
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Craiova – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 2755/95/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
In interpreting the provisions of Article 30 para. (44) of Law No. 263/2010 on the Unified Public Pension System, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the assimilation of the period prior to 1 April 2001, during which employees carried out activities among those referred to in Art. 30 para. (l) letter (i) of the same law, in jobs classified in the second group of work, to a period of contribution under special working conditions, also has effects in terms of increasing the monthly scores by 50%, according to Article 100 letter b) of Law No. 263/2010, and not only with regard to the determination of the period of contribution, according to Article 56 para. (1) letter d) and to the reduction of the retirement age, according to Art. 562 para. (1) letter d) of Law No. 263/2010.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 3 June 2024.
Judgement no. 29 in Case no. 536/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by Tudorache Cătălin George for clarification of the operative part of Decision No 31 of 17 May 2021 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – The Panel for Preliminary Ruling on Questions of Law, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 734 of 27 July 2021.
Returned in public hearing, today, 3 June 2024.
High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 20 May 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered five requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgement no. 22 in Case no. 232/1/2024
The Panel sustains the joined requests brought by the Court of Appeal of Timişoara – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 5663/30/2022 and by the Court of Appel of Cluj – IV Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber in Case no. 2914/100/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
The provisions of Article 13 of Law No 285/2010 on the 2011 salaries of staff paid from public funds, as amended and supplemented, Article 9 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 80/2010 supplementing Article 11 of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 37/2008 on the regulation of certain financial measures in the budgetary sector, as well as for the establishment of other financial measures in the budgetary sector, approved with amendments and additions by Law No. 283/2011, Article 2 of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 84/2012 on the establishment of salaries of budgetary sector staff in 2013, the extension of certain deadlines in legislative acts, as well as some fiscal-budgetary measures, approved by Law No. 36/2014, with subsequent amendments, Article 10 of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 103/2013 on the salaries of staff paid from public funds in 2014, as well as other measures in the field of public expenditure, approved with additions by Law No. 28/2014, with subsequent amendments and additions, Article 9 of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 83/2014 on the salaries of staff paid from public funds in 2015, as well as other measures in the field of public expenditure, approved with amendments and additions by Law No. 71/2015, with subsequent amendments and additions, Article 11 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 57/2015 on the salaries of staff paid from public funds in 2016, the extension of certain deadlines, as well as some fiscal-budgetary measures, with subsequent amendments and additions, Article 1 para. (3) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 9/2017 on some budgetary measures in 2017, extension of some deadlines, as well as amendments and additions to some normative acts, approved with amendments and additions by Law No. 115/2017, as amended, Art. 11 para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 90/2017 on some fiscal-budgetary measures, amending and supplementing some normative acts and extending some deadlines, approved with additions by Law No. 80/2018, as amended and supplemented, Art. 41 para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 114/2018 on the establishment of certain measures in the field of public investment and certain fiscal-budgetary measures, amending and supplementing certain regulatory acts and extending certain deadlines, as amended and supplemented, Article VII para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 130/2021 on some fiscal-budgetary measures, extending certain time limits and amending and supplementing certain legislative acts, with subsequent amendments and additions, which successively ordered the non-granting of the retirement allowance provided for in Article 81 paragraph 1 of the Law No 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, with reference to the provisions of Art. 294 para. (5) letter (a) of Law No 303/2022 on the status of judges and prosecutors, as subsequently amended and supplemented, had the effect of suspending the exercise of this right, without the subjective right having become current again.
The measure provided for in Article VII para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 130/2021 and Article VII para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 168/2022 on certain fiscal-budgetary measures, the extension of certain deadlines and the amendment and completion of certain legislative acts, as subsequently amended and supplemented, with reference to the retirement allowance provided for in Article 81 para. (1) of Law No 303/2004, ceased on the date of repeal of Law No 303/2004, without the right to the pension allowance becoming current again from the date of cessation of any cause for suspension or non-application of the provisions of Article 81 para. (1) of Law No 303/2004.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 20 May 2024.
Judgement no. 23 in case no. 474/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bacău – Second Civil, Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law:
If, in interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 781 para. (1), Art. 783 para. (2), Art. 790 par. (1) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a third party shall be deemed to be a person who:
- Does not have any legal obligation towards the debtor;
- Does not owe or will not in the future owe any money to the debtors sought;
- Does not hold money on behalf of these debtors;
- It is a contractual party to a contract for the provision of services, which expressly states that it is not and cannot be considered a third party, yet some courts of law ignore this fact;
- Under the said service contract, the holder of the account in lei is E.M.I. (the electronic money institution established and authorised in Lithuania), the collector account which is debited exclusively by E.M.I. and not by its customers (in this case, the debtor sought in the enforcement proceedings);
- It is not the holder of the collector account or accounts associated with it and does not open payment accounts to the debtors pursued, and the latter are not the real beneficiaries of the respective virtual accounts;
- It does not issue payment instructions with respect to payments from the collector account nor does it receive payment instructions from the debtors being pursued.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 20 May 2024.
Judgement no. 24 in case no. 477/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Galaţi – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 477/1/2024, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
How to interpret and apply the provisions of Art. 65 para. (1), (4) and (5) of Law No. 263/2010 on the Unified Public Pension System, as subsequently amended and supplemented, for the purposes of determining whether a person receiving a partial early retirement pension under Article 65 para. (1) and (4) of the Law may apply for recalculation of the number of months of early retirement in the event of subsequent amendment of the provisions of Article 65 (5) or whether he may apply for partial early retirement under Article 65 para. (5) or whether he may apply for partial early retirement under Article 65 para. (1) and (5) of the same law.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 20 May 2024.
Judgement no. 25 in case no. 542/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Cluj – IV Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Interpretation and application of Art. 5 para. (1) letter (o) of Law 341/2004, as amended by Article I, point 10 of Emergency Ordinance No 95 of 29 December 2014, in relation to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, read in conjunction with Article 1 para. (3) and Art. 20 para. (2) of the Romanian Constitution, in order to determine whether, in the application of those legal provisions, the national courts are entitled, as a result of a finding of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to establish the existence of an entitlement on the part of recipients of the allowance provided for in Article 5 para. (1) letter (o) of Law No 341/2004 to receive payment of that allowance at the level resulting from the application of the calculation algorithm laid down in that legal text, given the existence of annual legal provisions for maintaining payment of that allowance at the level of 2010 [Article 14 of Law No 118/2010; Article 10 of Law No 285/2010; art. 3 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 19/2012; Art. 1 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 84/2012; Art. 14 point 1) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 103/2013; Art. 13 para. (1) letter j) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 83/2014; Art. IV para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 95/2014; Art. 12 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2015; Art. 11 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 99/2016; Art. 1 para. (3) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 9/2017; Art. 12 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 90/2017; Art. 40 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 114/2018; Article IX, point 2 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 130/2021; Article XVIII of Government Emergency Ordinance No 168/2022].
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 20 May 2024.
Judgement no. 26 in case no. 457/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Timiş– Second Civil Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law:
- In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 4 para. (11) of Law no. 77/2016, in relation to Art. 970 of the Civil Code of 1864 and Art. 1271 of the Civil Code, the intervention of the court in the contract between the parties, as a result of the manifestation of hardship (the reaching of the exchange rate established by the legal presumption), takes place at the time of the occurrence of the event of hardship (the reaching of the exchange rate established by the legal presumption) or at the time of registration of the notice of balancing of the contract/payment or at the time of the court’s ruling on the balancing of the contract;
- If the answer to question (question of law) number 1 is that the court can intervene in the contract as soon as the hardship (the reaching of the exchange rate established by the legal presumption) occurs, the services performed after that moment will also be subject to balancing, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 4 para. (11) of Law no. 77/2016, with reference to Art. 4 para. (4) of Law no. 77/2016;
- c. If the answer to question (question of law) No 1 is that the court may intervene in the contract only from the moment of registration of the notice of contract balancing, are the performances already executed in a state of hardship, namely above the threshold established by the legal presumption, shall be deemed to have won the contract, or the court must take them into account when it is called upon to order the balancing of the contract and possibly to find additional ways of balancing the contract in addition to that of establishing an average exchange rate;
- In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 4 para. (4) of Law no. 77/2016, in relation to Art. 970 of the Civil Code of 1864 and Art. 1271 of the Civil Code, if the answer to question (question of law) number 1 is that the intervention of the court in the contract can only be made from the moment of registration of the notice of balancing of the contract, the reduction of the credit balance could represent a way of balancing the credit contract that would produce effects only for the future.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 20 May 2024.
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 May 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in the case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Judgment no. 21 in Case no. 422/1/2024
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Mureş – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 3.195/102/2023, for a preliminary ruling, and, as a result, establishes that:
„1. In the interpretation of art. 5 para. (6) of Decree-Law no. 118/1990 on the granting of certain rights to individuals persecuted for political reasons by the dictatorship established as of 6 March 1945 and to those deported abroad or taken prisoner, republished, as subsequently amended and updated, the recognition of certain rights specific to a child who was a minor on the date on which one or both parents were displaced to another location and to a child born during the period of displacement, has the effect of putting an end to the previous practice of recognizing entitlement to the same allowance under art. 1 para. (1) letter e) of this act, after the date of implementation of that provision.
2. In the interpretation of art. 5 para. (7) of Decree-Law No 118/1990 on the granting of certain rights to individuals persecuted for political reasons by the dictatorship established as of 6 March 1945, as well as to those deported abroad or taken prisoner, republished, with subsequent amendments and updates, establishes that the children of the individuals referred to in art. 5 para. (6) of said legislative act may not benefit from these provisions.”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 13 May 2024.
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 22 April 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered two requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgement no. 19 in case no. 193/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunalul of București – VI Civil Chamber, in Case no. 3393/301/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“To what extent is Article 14 of Law No 132/2017 to be interpreted as meaning that, if the vehicle has been repaired and repair receipts issued by the service facility are submitted, the amount of compensation must be determined on the basis of the value resulting from those receipts or, on the contrary, even in such a situation, the court must and may assess whether the claims based on those receipts are justified or reasonable by reference to the average market price?”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 22 April 2024.
Judgement no. 20 in case no. 260/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bacău – Second Civil, Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
„In interpreting the provisions of Articles 169, 174 and 180 of Law No 85/2014, having considered the rulings in Decision No 27/2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the resolution of appeals in the interest of the law, is it admissible to appeal against the judgment of the court imposing patrimonial liability for the state of insolvency, in the event that the closure of the proceedings becomes final by non-appeal?”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 22 April 2024.
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 15 April 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in the case, considered a request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Judgement 17 in Case 70/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 409/64/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
if the provisions of Article 6 para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 94/2000 on the restitution of immovable property which belonged to religious cults in Romania be interpreted as applying also to holders of applications for the restitution of immovable property which was lawfully disposed of prior to 22 December 1989?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 15 April 2024.
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 8 April 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered two requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgement no. 15 in Case no. 214/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Piteşti – First Civil Chamber for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
The interpretation of Article IV of Law No 42/2020, respectively whether its provisions on increasing the gross amount of the basic salary by 30% also apply to military personnel in museums of national importance.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 8 April 2024.
Judgement no. 16 in Case no. 233/1/2024
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Constanţa – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 52/118/2023, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“In interpreting Art. 55 para. (2) in conjunction with Art. 192 para. (1) of the Law no. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, as amended, insured persons who have completed periods of contribution in the state military pension system under special or particular conditions (or group I or II of work) benefit from the reduction of the standard retirement age under the terms of Art. 55 para. (1) points (a) and (b) of Law No 263/2010?”
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 8 April 2024.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
