Press releases – preliminary rulings on questions of law in civil matter

High Court of Cassation and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 25 March 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:

Judgment no. 13 in Case no. 20/1/2024

 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Constanţa – Second Civil, Insolvency and Corporate and Professional Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 9306/212/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

’’In the interpretation of Art. 483 para. (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is the claim for freezing (stabilisation) of the exchange rate at its value at the date of the conclusion of contracts between professionals and consumers, based on the provisions of Article 970 of the Civil Code of 1864 and Constitutional Court Decision No 623 of 25 October 2016, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, No 53 of 18 January 2017, covered by consumer protection claims and is it or is it not subject to recourse?’’

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 25 March 2024.

Judgment no. 14 in Case no. 121/1/2024

 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest, Fifth Civil Chamber, in Case no. 25360/302/2019 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

’’The interpretation of Art. 697 para. (2), second sentence, of the Code of Civil Procedure, respectively whether the time limit for the stay of enforcement runs from the date of the creditor’s application for a suspension of enforcement or from the date of the bailiff’s written request that the creditor perform an act or step necessary for enforcement, prior to the suspension request of the enforcement.’’

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 25 March 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 11 March 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:

 

Judgment 10 in Case 3016/1/2023 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Ilfov – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 14926/94/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 53 of Law no. 223/2007 on the status of professional air crew in civil aviation in Romania, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in relation to the provisions contained in Government Decision no. 1061/1995 on certain rights and obligations of personnel performing carriage of passengers and cargo by air in international traffic, Government Decision no. 1162/2004 amending the Annex to Government Decision No 518/1995 on certain rights and obligations of Romanian personnel sent abroad to perform temporary missions and Law No 227/2015 on the Fiscal Code, as amended, in order to determine whether the average income earned in the last 3 months of activity as professional civil aviation personnel includes per diem allowance and additional rest leave. 

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 11 March 2024.

 

Judgment 11 in Case 2994/1/2023 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of  Galați – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 3717/121/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law: 

A child adopted with full effect and who, prior to adoption, established family relations and was cared for by the surviving parent together with the politically persecuted parent who died before the adoption was granted, shall be included in the category of persons entitled to the allowance provided for in Article 5(51) of Decree-Law No 118/1990 on the granting of certain rights to persons persecuted for political reasons by the dictatorship established from 6 March 1945 and to those deported abroad or taken prisoner, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented? 

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 11 March 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 19 February 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:

 

Judgment 8 in Case 2900/1/2023 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Alba – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 2480/97/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

The reduction of the share capital by reducing the number of shares or corporate units, according to Article 15324 and Article 207 of the Companies Act no. 31/1990, republished, with subsequent amendments and additions, is an expense resulting from the depreciation of equity securities and bonds, recorded according to accounting regulations – within the meaning of Article 21 para. (1) of Law No 571/2003 on the Fiscal Code, as amended and supplemented, and Title II, point 23(i) of the Methodological Norms for the application of Law No 571/2003 on the Fiscal Code, approved by Government Decision No 44/2004, as amended and supplemented?

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

 

Judgment 9 in Case 2892/1/2023 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of  Bucharest – Sixth Civil Chamber, for the clarification of the following point of law:

”To what extent does Article 115 para. (1) of Law No 85/2014 to applications made by a company against which insolvency proceedings have been opened after the application has been made but before the notification of the obligation to pay the stamp duty?”.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 19 February 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 5 February 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:

 

Judgment 5 in Case 2834/1/2023 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Cluj – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 2848/117/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Interpretation of Article 170 para. (1) and (3) of Law No. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in order to clarify how the correction index for recipients of invalidity pensions established under Law No. 263/2010 is determined, i.e. whether on the date of their enrolment for old age pension they are still subject to the correction index established by the decision granting the invalidity pension or whether the correction index in force on the date of their enrolment for old age pension is applied to them.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 5 February 2024.

 

Judgment 6 in Case 2847/1/2023 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Suceava – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 3182/86/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

If the provisions of Article 89 para. (1) (a) and para (2) of Law No. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, as subsequently amended and supplemented, exclude the right of the beneficiary of the survivor’s pension to request recalculation or revision of the deceased’s pension rights in order to change the basis for the calculation of the survivor’s pension, by reference to the provisions of Article 113 para. (1)a) and of Article 107 of the same law  

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 5 February 2024.

 

Judgment 7 in Case 2711/1/2023 

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Timiș – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 25846/325/2020*, for a preliminary ruling, and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting the provisions of Article 324 para. (1) and (4) of the Civil Code, the phrase ”until the date of the final judgment of division” represents the maximum moment up to which the judgment which admitted a claim for the allocation of the benefit of the matrimonial home on the dissolution of the marriage has legal effects, without the admissibility of the action being conditional on the existence before the courts of a claim for the exit from the undivided ownership of the same home.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 5 February 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 29 January 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:

 

Judgment 2 in Case 2627/1/2023 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Alba – First Civil Chamber, for the clarification of the following point of law:

How to interpret the provisions of Article 652 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 781 of the Code of Civil Procedure, respectively, as regards the nature of the obligation of the debtor, the Ministry of Public Finance, contained in enforceable orders represented by judgments concerning the award of salary rights to judicial staff, namely whether the obligation to allocate the funds necessary for payment constitutes an obligation to give or an obligation to do.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 29 January 2024.

 

Judgment 3 in Case 2628/1/2023 

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Ploiești – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 2834/120/2022, for a preliminary ruling, and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 25 para. (1) and Article 6(b) of Framework Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, as subsequently modifief and amended, the principle of non-discrimination cannot be invoked for the granting of the allowances provided for in Articles 4 and 5 of Chapter VIII Annex No V of Framework Law No 153/2017 at the maximum level, if this would exceed the 30% ceiling provided for in Article 25 of the same act.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 29 January 2024.

 

Judgment 4 in Case 2712/1/2023 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Mureș –Civil Chamber, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

If the provisions of Article 39 para. (1) letter a) of the Government Emergency Ordinance no.114/2018 according to which:

(1) The payment of the amounts provided for by court judgments concerning the granting of rights of a salary nature established in favour of the staff of public institutions and authorities, which have become enforceable in the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021, shall be made as follows:

(a) 5% of the amount of the enforceable order shall be paid in the first year following the date on which the judgment becomes enforceable;” shall be interpreted as meaning that the phrase “in the first year following the date on which the judgment becomes enforceable” means that the payment of the amounts shall be made within one year of the date on which the judgment becomes enforceable or that the payment of the amounts shall be made by the end of the year following the year in which the judgment becomes enforceable.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 29 January 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 January 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 1 in Case 2505/1/2023

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Cluj–Civil Chamber, in Case no. 8481/211/20221 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following points of law:

 ”If in the interpretation and application of Article 32 para. (1) of Law No 50/1991 it is necessary for the competent body to apply one of the complementary sanctions provided for in Article 28 para. (1) of Law No 50/1991, or can the competent authority apply to the court even if the administrative offence report has ordered a measure to ensure compliance with the law within a certain time-limit and the offender has not obtained the necessary authorisation by the end of that time-limit?

If in interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 32 para. (1) letter b) of Law no. 50/1991 and the provisions of Article 59 of Order no. 839/2009 it is mandatory for the body that imposed the sanction to go through the procedure provided for in Article 59 para. (2) of Order No 839/2009 prior to the initiation of legal proceedings, or may the mayor of the administrative-territorial unit proceed directly to initiate legal proceedings for the dismantling of the construction in the event that the administrative offence report imposes the complementary sanction of halting the works and ordering the measure of legality within a certain period of time, and on the expiry of that period the offender has not obtained the building permit?”

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 22 January 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 11 December 2023, 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:

Judgment 79 in Case 1780/1/2023

 

The Panel sustains the joined requests brought by the Court of Appeal of Iaşi – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber in Cases no. 1280/89/2022 and no. 3824/99/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 79 para. (1) and (3) of Law No 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in relation to the provisions of Art. 1 para. (2) and Art. 278 para. (2) of Law No 53/2003 – Labour Code, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the provision relating to the right to take 35 days’ rest leave and other leave is to be interpreted as not allowing this rest leave to be combined with the additional leave provided for in Article 147 of the Labour Code.

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 147 of the Labour Code and Article 3 of Law No 31/1991 concerning the establishment of working hours of less than 8 hours a day for employees working in particularly difficult, harmful or dangerous conditions, the phrase “harmful conditions”, which gives entitlement to additional leave, does not have the same legal content as the phrase “harmful conditions” in Article 7 para. (1) of Annex VI to Framework Law No 330/2009 on the unitary remuneration of staff paid from public funds, as subsequently amended, respectively Art. 4 para. (1) Chapter VIII of Annex VI of the Framework Law No 284/2010 on the unitary pay of staff paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and subsequently Art. 4 para. (1) Chapter VIII of Annex V to Framework Law No 153/2017 on the pay of staff paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, identity of legal content justifying the conclusion that the issue of the expert report by the body authorised to assess occupational risks in the workplace, carried out in application of Order of the Prosecutor General of the Public Prosecutor’s Office next to the High Court of Cassation and Justice No. 24/2010 for the approval of the conditions for granting the bonus for difficult, harmful or dangerous working conditions in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, respectively in application of Government Decision No 118/2018 for the approval of the Framework Regulation on the determination of workplaces, categories of staff, the concrete size of the allowance for working conditions, as well as the conditions for granting it for the occupational family of budgetary functions “Justice” and the Constitutional Court, is sufficient to establish the existence of harmful conditions within the meaning of Article 147 of the Labour Code and Article 3 of Law No 31/1991.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 11 December 2023.

 

Judgment 80 in Case 2435/1/2023

 

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Braşov – Civil Chamber in Case no. 2710/62/2022, for a preliminary ruling and consequently:

In the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 6 points (b) and (c) of Framework Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, it establishes that the principles of non-discrimination and equality may be invoked to equalize the maximum level of basic salaries, including taking into account the increases recognized by final court decisions, provided that they are generally applicable to the same professional categories within the same occupational family.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 11 December 2023.

Judgment 81 in Case 2440/1/2023

 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Giurgiu – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 13352/236/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Does the notion of “minimum space inhabited by the debtor and his family”, used in Art. 242 para. (3) of the Code of Tax Procedure, include the land used as a yard and garden and the outbuildings attached to the dwelling house and forming, together with it, a functional unit?

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 11 December 2023.

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

High Court of Cassation and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 27 November 2023, 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 78 in Case 1754/1/2023

 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Suceava – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 972/110/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

          Interpretation of the provisions of Article 82 para. (1) of Law No 303/2004 in order to clarify whether the phrase “gross monthly employment allowance received” referred to in Art. 82 para. (1) of Law No 303/2004, which includes entitlements granted by final judgments on the recalculation of salary entitlements using the multiplication coefficients referred to in point (a) No. 6 – 13 of Annex No 1 to Government Emergency Ordinance No 27/2006 for D.N.A. and D.I.I.C.O.T. prosecutors, is limited to the level of the monthly allowance for the year 2022, in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 para. (6) of the Framework Law no. 153/2017.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 11 December 2023.

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 20 November 2023, 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 four requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:

 

Judgment 74 in Case 1379/1/2023

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Constanţa – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in Case no. 4899/118/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 1 para. (6) of the Administrative Litigation Act No 554/2004, as amended, the public authority issuing a unilateral administrative act of a regulatory nature may not apply to the court for its annulment.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 20 November 2023.

 

Judgment 75 in Case 1864/1/2023

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the joined requests brought by the Tribunal of Harghita – Civil Chamber, in cases No 215/96/2023, No 174/96/2023, No 547/96/2023, No 176/96/2023, No 548/96/2023, No 108/96/2023 and No 1.388/96/2022, for a preliminary ruling on the question of law relating to the provisions of Article 13 para. (8) of Decree-Law No 118/1990 on the granting of certain rights to persons persecuted for political reasons by the dictatorship established from 6 March 1945 and to those deported abroad or taken prisoner, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 20 November 2023.

 

Judgment 76 in Case 1919/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Constanţa – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 575/118/2023 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Is Article 5 of Government Ordinance No 105/1999 on the granting of certain rights to persons persecuted by the regimes established in Romania from 6 September 1940 to 6 March 1945 on ethnic grounds, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, to be interpreted as meaning that the rights governed by that article will also be granted from 1 January 2024, or does the extension of the period of entitlement relate only to payment of the compensation governed by Article 31 of Government Ordinance No 105/1999?

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 20 November 2023.

 

Judgment 77 in Case 1977/1/2023

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – IX Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in Case no. 15.134/3/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 13 para. (2) point (a) of Law No. 295/2004 on the regime of arms and ammunition, republished, as amended and supplemented, the term “military” shall be understood to include the notion of “professional soldiers and military graduates” of Law No. 384/2006 on the status of professional soldiers and military graduates, as amended and supplemented.

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 20 November 2023.

 

 

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 30 October 2023, 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:

Judgment 73 in Case 1861/1/2023

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Arad – III Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 4899/118/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“The injured person, other than the offender, who has been ordered to demolish the building by the infringement report, may be assimilated to the injured person to whom the confiscated goods belong within the meaning of Article 31 para. (2), second sentence, of Government Ordinance No 2/2001 on the legal regime of contraventions, by analogy with Article 1 para. (2) of the Civil Code?”

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 30 October 2023.

Judgment 72 in Case 1711/1/2023

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Covasna – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 937/322/2022 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

In the application and interpretation of Government Decision No 1102/2014 on the conditions for making available on the market of pyrotechnic articles, which transposes into national law the Directive No 2013/29/EU of the Council of the European Union and of the European Parliament of 12 June 2013 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles, namely the principles of priority of national law, legal certainty, legality and immediate application of the new law, are the provisions of Article 34 para. (2) points (b), (c), (d) and (g) of Law No 126/1995 on the regime of explosive materials, republished, or the provisions of Annex No 1 to Government Decision No 1102/2014 applicable in relation to the safety distances for pyrotechnic articles?

Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public hearing, today, 30 October 2023.

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

Loading...