High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 23 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 69 in Case 1939/1/2023
The Panel sustains the joined requests brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – VIII Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in Case no. 7835/2/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, in the interpretation of Art. 10 para. (1) of Law no. 241/2005 on preventing and combating tax evasion, as subsequently amended and supplemented (as in force on 20 November 2018), in conjunction with Art. 486 para. (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, establishes that:
In the hypothesis of the pronouncement of a sentence on the defendant who fully acquits the claims of the civil party, under the terms of Art. 10 para. (1) of Law no. 241/2005, as a result of the admission of a plea agreement under Art. 478 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the criminal judgment shall have the authority of res judicata on the extent of the damage before the civil court, the provisions of Art. 486 para. (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure not being incident.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 20 November 2023.
Judgment 70 in Case 1795/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bihor – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 2694/271/2020, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“The interpretation of the provisions of Article 413 para. (1) point 1, Art. 415 point 3, Art. 416 para. (1) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of clarifying whether in the case of an optional suspension ordered by the court when the outcome of the case depends in whole or in part on the outcome of another case, but which does not concern the same and/or all the parties to the suspended case, after completion of the case until the outcome of which the suspension was ordered, the proceedings in the suspended case are resumed of the court’s own motion and not at the request of the parties, or where no party requests the case to be resumed within six months of the termination of the ground for suspension, the application or an appeal may be declared obsolete, even against a party to the suspended case who is not a party to the case pending the resolution of which the suspension has been ordered.”
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 9 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 three requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment 66 in Case 1616/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – VIII Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in Case no. 20776/3/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
The provisions of Articles 13 and 40 point 2 of the Treaty between Romania and Ukraine on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil Matters, signed in Bucharest on 30 January 2002, ratified by Law no. 3/2005, are not applicable when the application for regaining Romanian citizenship is decided by the Commission for Citizenship of the National Authority for Citizenship, a procedure finalized by issuing an administrative act subject to review by the administrative courts (in the case of applications decided prior to the entry into force of Government Emergency Ordinance No 82/2021 supplementing the Romanian Citizenship Law No 21/1991).
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 9 October 2023.
Judgment 67 in Case 1618/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – VIII Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber by judgment of 19 January 2023 in Case No 7.156/3/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
The provisions of Article 22 of the Treaty between Romania and the Republic of Moldova on legal assistance in civil and criminal matters, signed in Chişinău on 6 July 1996, ratified by Law No 177/1997, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 1 points (a) and (b) and Article 2 point 2 of the same treaty, are not applicable when the application for regaining Romanian citizenship is decided by the Commission for Citizenship of the National Authority for Citizenship.
The provisions of Article 12 of the Treaty between the People’s Republic of Romania and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Legal Assistance in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters, ratified by Decree no. 334/1958, published in the Official Gazette no. 30 of 4 August 1958, in conjunction with those of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the same treaty, are not applicable when the application for regaining Romanian citizenship is decided by the Commission for Citizenship of the National Authority for Citizenship.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 9 October 2023.
Judgment 68 in Case 1649/1/2023
The Panel sustains the requests brought by the Tribunal of Constanţa –Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber by judgment of 31 May 2023 in Case No 8.923/118/2022 and by judgment of 31 May 2023 in Case No 8.890/118/2022 for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting the provisions of Article 31 para. (3) 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, only children of persons who were born or at least conceived on the date of refuge, expulsion or relocation to another locality, events referred to in Article 1 para. (1) point (c) of the Ordinance may benefit from these provisions.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 9 October 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 2 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 three requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment 61 in Case 1637/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Specialized Tribunal of Cluj – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 941/1285/2022/a2 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“How to interpret the provisions of Art. 200 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in conjunction with the provisions of Art. 33 para. (1) and Art. 42 – Art. 44 of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 80/2013, as regards the moment from which the 10-day procedural time-limit is to be calculated for the purpose of establishing the lack of proof of payment of the stamp duty, in the event that an application for the granting of facilities for the payment of the stamp duty has been made?”
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 2 October 2023.
Judgment 62 in Case 1770/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Călăraşi – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 7830/202/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“The provisions of Article 705 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be interpreted as meaning that the commencement of enforcement in another enforcement file after the termination of enforcement in the first enforcement file pursuant to Art. 703 para. (1), point 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be made within the limitation period for enforcement, the acts of enforcement carried out in the previous enforcement file have the capacity to interrupt the limitation period for the right to seek enforcement, an interrupting effect which may be used subsequently, since the enforcement court cannot verify the expiry of the limitation period for the right to seek enforcement in the previous enforcement file, but only from the resumption of enforcement”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 2 October 2023.
Judgment 63 in Case 1714/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Hunedoara – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 3382/278/2023 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
If the phrase “the person against whom a measure has been ordered by the protection order for the maximum duration may request the revocation of the order or the replacement of the measure ordered” in Art. 49 para. (1) of Law No. 217/2003 on preventing and combating domestic violence, republished, as amended and supplemented, refers only to the person against whom a protection order of maximum duration has been issued, or is it to be interpreted in such a way that even a person against whom a protection measure of maximum duration has been ordered may request the revocation of the protection order issued against him?;
If the phrase “the person against whom a measure has been ordered by the protection order for the maximum duration may request the revocation of the order or the replacement of the measure ordered” in Art. 49 para. (1) of Law No. 217/2003 is mandatory and is in addition to the other conditions which must be met cumulatively, as laid down in Article 49 para. (2) of Law 217/2003;
If a person against whom a protection order has been ordered for a period of time below the maximum prescribed by law may request the revocation of the order or the replacement of the order;
What is the time limit for lodging an appeal against the civil judgment granting or rejecting the application for revocation of the protection order: 3 days after the judgment is delivered or 30 days after the judgment is served?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 2 October 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 25 September 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 59 in Case 364/1/2023
The Panel sustains the joined requests brought by the Court of Appeal of Bacău – Second Civil Chamber in Case no. 3652/110/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting the provisions of Article 31 para. (12) of Law No 360/2002 on the status of police officers, as amended and supplemented, in relation to Art. 31 para. (1) and Art. 31 para. (11) of the same Act, form prior to amendment by Act No 113/2023 amending and supplementing Article 31 of Act No 360/2002 on the Status of Police Officers, it stipulates that in order to be entitled to the monthly rent allowance for the payment of the instalment or a fraction of the instalment of the mortgage/real estate credit, it is not necessary for the dwelling purchased by the police officer to be located in the locality where the police officer is working, but the dwelling may also be located in another (neighbouring) locality.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 25 September 2023.
Judgment 60 in Case 1499/1/2022
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Galaţi – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 5900/233/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Can the court hearing a complaint about an administrative offence order that the content of the administrative offence report be amended so as to impose a lower fine where the fine imposed by the official responsible for the administrative offence exceeds the maximum amount laid down by law?
Where the law on administrative offences confers exclusive jurisdiction over the imposition of the penalty and the amount of the fine on the official responsible for the administrative offence, may the court set a different amount from that indicated in the contested report?
If the court finds that a fine has been imposed in excess of the statutory maximum, may it reduce the fine imposed to an amount prescribed by law, even though the appellant had not requested such a reduction?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 25 September 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 18 September 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 seven requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment 49 in Case 1635/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Prahova – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 17786/281/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
In interpreting Art. 154 et seq. in relation to Art. 91 para. (1) and (2) of the Law no. 85/2014 on insolvency and insolvency proceedings, as amended and supplemented, in relation to Art. 163 para. (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1968, respectively Art. 249 para. (1), (2) and (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the recovery of assets belonging to a legal person in insolvency proceedings, when such assets are subject to protective measures established in the framework of criminal proceedings with a view to repairing the damage caused by the offence, generates the legal consequence of:
- The acquisition, free of any encumbrances, of the assets disposed of by the insolvency administrator or liquidator in the exercise of his powers under Law No 85/2014?
- The removal from the land register of the charges registered on the basis of the precautionary measures ordered to cover the damage?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 18 September 2023.
Judgment 50 in Case 1128/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Mureş – Civil Chamber in Case no. 1627/320/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting the provisions of Article 138 para. (1) and art. 139 of Law no. 85/2006 on insolvency proceedings, as amended and supplemented, in relation to the provisions of art. 220 para. (10) and art. 215 of Law no. 207/2015 on the Fiscal Procedure Code, as amended, where the liability of the members of the management bodies has been ordered, according to the provisions of the insolvency law, and the liabilities of the insolvent debtor also include tax claims, the limitation period for enforcement is the 3-year period provided by the Civil Procedure Code.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 18 September 2023.
Judgment 51 in Case 1287/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Iaşi – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber in Case no. 3765/99/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 14 para. (3) and Art. 39 para. (5) of Framework Law No 153/2017 on the salaries of staff paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, it establishes that the exclusion of the cumulation of the monthly allowance for the scientific title of doctor and the salary related to the teaching grade “I” obtained on the basis of the same scientific title of doctor also applies to teachers who, prior to the entry into force of Framework Law No 153/2017, were awarded the teaching grade I on the basis of the scientific title of doctor, on the basis of Art. 36 para. (3) of Law no. 128/1997 on the Status of Teachers, as amended and supplemented, and the Methodology for in-service training of teachers in pre-university education, approved by Order of the Minister of National Education no. 3770/1998, as amended and supplemented.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 18 September 2023.
Judgment 52 in Case 1500/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Piteşti- First Civil Chamber in Case no. 5465/288/2017**, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting the provisions of Article 488 para. (1), point 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by reference to Articles 19 and 219 of the same Code, in the context of the ground of recourse provided for in Article 488 para. (1) point (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not possible to examine the criticisms concerning the legality of the measure of changing the composition of the panel of appeal judges ordered by a decision of the court’s governing board, since the legality of that decision may be examined under the terms of Law No 554/2004 on administrative disputes, as subsequently amended and supplemented.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 18 September 2023.
Judgment 53 in Case 1304/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Specialized Tribunal of Mureş, in Case no. 10049/320/2020*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“How to interpret the provisions of Article 8 and Article 9 of Law No 77/2016 on the payment of immovable property for the settlement of loan obligations by reference to the provisions of Article 468 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the time-limit for appeals applicable to applications for appeal concerning actions by debtors concerning (the sole head of claim) the adaptation of the contract/rebalancing of benefits arising from credit agreements, namely: the 7-day time-limit laid down in the special act or the general 30-day time-limit”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 18 September 2023.
Judgment 54 in Case 1425/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Argeş – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 18902/280/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 27 para. (23) of the Land Law no. 18/1991, republished, as amended by Law no. 263/2022, by the phrase “or those who have acquired these properties by deeds of transfer of ownership” may be understood any sub-seller, natural or legal person, of the right of ownership of the building?
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 27 para. (23) point (a) of Law no. 18/1991, as amended by Law no. 263/2022, according to which “if the owners or their heirs are listed with the dwelling house in the agricultural registers or cadastral registers or are entered in the land register and are registered in the tax records#, it is necessary that at the date of the application for the establishment of the right of ownership of the land the building has the use of a dwelling house or it is sufficient that the building had this use at the date of construction or acquisition under the terms of Law no. 112/1995 on the legal status of certain buildings used as dwellings, which have become the property of the State, as subsequently amended?
A legal person governed by private law (company) that has acquired the building by sale-purchase contract from the person who built the building before 1990 or from the person who bought it according to the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 or from their heirs may benefit from the provisions of Art. 27 para. (23) of Law No 18/1991, as amended by Law No 263/2022, if at the time of the application for the establishment of ownership of the land the building is the company’s registered office or are those provisions enacted only in favour of natural persons in consideration of the use of the building as a dwelling-house under point (a) of the same law?
Can it be held that, by transferring ownership of the dwelling house to a legal person governed by private law (a company), the building changes its purpose, since it is not the company’s seat at the time when the application for registration of ownership of the land was made, and it retains within the company the purpose for which it was intended at the time when the building was constructed, in the first variant, and does not retain within the company the purpose for which it was intended at the time when the building was constructed, in the second variant?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 18 September 2023.
Judgment 55 in Case 1536/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest, V Civil Chamber, in Case no. 1577/3/2023, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“If the consent of the owners’ association, based on Article 50 letter b) of Law no. 196/2018 on the Establishment, Organization and Functioning of Owners’ Associations and Condominium Management, as amended, is deemed to be formed on the basis of all the written and signed declarations of each owner (in which case the written expression of each owner’s option is required), or it is sufficient to prove the notification of each owner of the matters under discussion, without the need to communicate the written declaration of each owner, then the association’s will agreement would be formed on the basis of a sufficient number of declarations to ensure the vote of a simple majority of the total number of owners.”
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 18 September 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 19 June 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 requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Judgment 46 in Case 1130/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bacău – Second Civil Chamber, in Case no. 102/110/2022 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
If, in the light of Decision No 23 of 15 November 2021, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No 62 of 20 January 2022, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law, Article 38 para. (1) of Government Ordinance No 64/2006 on the salaries and other rights of civil servants with special status in the penitentiary administration system, approved with amendments by Law No. 462/2006, as subsequently amended, be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the financial entitlements due to prison officers for the period during which they are on delegation, secondment, temporary incapacity for work, other paid leave and paid permissions granted under the legal provisions in force, account must be taken of the allowances for difficult, harmful or dangerous working conditions which they received during their period of service, corresponding to the time worked in those places of work?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 19 June 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 12 June 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 44 in Case 933/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Târgu Mureş – Second Civil, Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, by judgement of 20 March 2023, in Case no. 244/102/2021*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
In interpreting the provisions of Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act No 554/2004, the phrase “injured person” refers strictly to the person who has previously requested, under the terms of Article 18 para. (3) in conjunction with Article 8 of Law No 554/2004 on administrative disputes, the annulment of a regulatory administrative act without also claiming compensation for material and non-material damage, or does the concept of “injured party” also include, for the purposes of Article 19 of Law No 554/2004, a person claiming compensation for damage caused by a regulatory administrative act annulled at the request of a third party?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 12 June 2023.
Judgment 45 in Case 1050/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Gorj –Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, by judgement of 15 March 2023, in Case no. 6.050/318/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“If in interpreting the provisions of Art. 10 para. (1), (3) and (10) of the Rules on the origin, movement and marketing of wood materials, the rules governing storage facilities for wood materials and roundwood processing facilities, as well as those on the origin and movement of wood materials intended for the owner’s own consumption and certain measures implementing the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place wood and wood products on the market approved by Government Decision No. 497/2020 in the form in force until 20.04.2022, in conjunction with the provisions of art. I letter t) of Annex no. 1 to the rules, the volume of wood material exceeding 20 m3 transported in a period of 12 consecutive months by a natural or legal person and not registered in SUMAL 2.0. as a professional transporter, represents wood material without legal origin and consequently the transporter commits the offence referred to in art. 19 para. (2) lit. c) of Law no. 171/2010 as in force from 05.10.2021”.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 12 June 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 29 May 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 42 in Case 683/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Suceava – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in Case no. 4899/118/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting Article 25, second sentence, of the Emergency Ordinance of Government Ordinance No 59/2000, the right to the grant of a non-taxable monthly allowance amounting to 30% of the average gross salary in the economy is sufficiently well determined in the absence of the drafting of a regulation or methodological rules relating to the conditions and criteria for the grant of service housing for forestry staff.
In interpreting and applying the second sentence of Article 25 of the Emergency Ordinance of Government Ordinance No 59/2000, the phrase “in the locality in which they carry out their work” refers to the locality in which the headquarters of the organisational structure of the employing institution nominated as the place of work is located.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 29 May 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 22 May 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 41 in Case 521/1/2023
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – IX Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, by judgement of 20 December 2022, in Case no. 20.243/3/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“If the reduction in the payment of taxes provided for in Article 456 para. (4) and Art. 464 par. (4) of the Tax Code shall apply only to buildings and land used for the provision of tourist services, the duration of which is naturally limited to a maximum of 180 consecutive or cumulative days during a calendar year, or the reduction in the payment of taxes provided for in the above-mentioned laws shall also apply to buildings and land which may be used naturally, objectively, for the provision of tourist services throughout a calendar year, but, for reasons which exclude their fault as regards the duration of the provision of tourist services, such activity is limited to a maximum of 180 consecutive or cumulative days during a calendar year?”
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 22 May 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 15 May 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 35 in Case 513/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Cluj – III Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in Case no. 230/84/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 513 para. (1) letter l) of the Administrative Code, in the context of the repeal of Art. 86 para. (3) of Act No. 188/1999, the granting of salary rights related to the period of suspension shall be carried out under the conditions of Article 52 para. (2) of the Labour Code, in relation to the provisions of Article 367 of the Administrative Code.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 15 May 2023.
Judgment 36 in Case 528/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Oradea – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 3678/111/2021, for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation and application of the provisions of Article 20 para. (2) and (3) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 59/2000 on the Status of Forestry Staff, approved with amendments and additions by Law No 427/2001, as amended and supplemented by Law No 234/2019, and, accordingly, establishes that:
Forestry workplaces where the activities referred to in Article 20 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2000, are classified ope legis under special conditions.
Forestry staff who have carried out the activities referred to in Art. 20 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2000, prior to the entry into force of Law No. 234/2019, shall benefit from the employment under special conditions and the rights provided for in Article 20 para. (3) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2000.
Obtaining the benefits provided for in Art. 20 para. (3) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 59/2000 on the date of entitlement to pension rights is not subject to the payment of social insurance contributions, and proof thereof need not be provided in the nominal insurance statement for the period after 1 April 2001.
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 15 May 2023.
Judgment 37 in Case 2637/1/2023
The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – IV Civil Chamber in Case no. 28297/302/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:
It is possible to fix the final amount due to the creditor by way of penalties for a period longer than 3 months, but consisting only of periods of 3 months each.
The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – IV Civil Chamber, in the same case, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 906 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, can the final amount due by way of penalties be determined if the obligation is extinguished after the court has been seised of the application for determination of the final amount and at least three months have elapsed from the date of notification of the decision imposing the penalties?
Mandatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public hearing, today, 15 May 2023.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.
