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

High Court of Cassation and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 20 February 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 11 in Case 2423/1/2022

 The Panel sustains the joined requests brought by the Court of Appeal of Craiova – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 1733/109/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 82 para. (2), Art. 86 para. (1) of Law No 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, with reference to the provisions of Article 49 para. (1) letter (c) of Law No 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, as amended and supplemented, Art. 1 and Art. 3 para. (3) of Law No 46/1996 on the training of the population for defence, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the period during which, after appointment to the judiciary, the judge or prosecutor has completed the compulsory military service shall constitute seniority in the judiciary.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 20 February 2023.

 

Judgment 12 in Case 2660/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Timişoara – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 5409/30/2021* for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

In interpreting the provisions of Article 7 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 158/2005 on social health insurance leave and allowances, approved with amendments and additions by Law No 399/2006, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the entitlement to the rights provided for in Article 2 para. (1) letter (c) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 158/2005 – payment of maternity benefits – is conditional on completion of the minimum period of insurance for the grant of those rights – six months completed in the 12 months preceding the month in respect of which the sick leave is granted – on the date of issue of the initial sick leave (date of birth), or are those benefits also granted to the extent that those six months are completed after the date of birth, but within the period of 126 days of sick leave for pregnancy and childbirth and, if so, from what point in time?

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 20 February 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 January 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 six requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:

Judgment 3 in Case 2219/1/2022

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Suceava – First Civil Chamber in Case no. 3244/86/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

The provisions of Article IX para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017 on amending and supplementing certain acts in the field of service pensions shall apply also to the service pensions of the auditors within the Court of Accounts.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.

Judgment 4 in Case 2287/1/2022

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Arad – III Administrative Jurisdiction, Tax, Labour and Social Security Chamber, in Case no. 1572/108/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 5 para. (6) 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, as well as to those deported abroad or taken prisoner, republished in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No 1208 of 10 December 2020, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the adopted child with the effects of natural filiation by other persons is not excluded, for this reason, from the benefit of the rights requested, in view of the political persecution of his biological parent.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.

Judgment 5 in Case 2155/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – IV Civil Chamber, in Case no. 16927/4/2017*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“If the provisions of Article 262 para. (4) of Law no. 207/2015 on the Code of Tax Procedure, as amended, derogate from the common law represented by Art. 724 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as regards the method of restoring the previous situation in the event that the foreclosed assets has been valorised, i.e. if, according to Art. 262 para. (4) of Law no. 207/2015 on the Code of Tax Procedure, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in tax matters, the method of restoring the previous situation in the event that the foreclosed assets have been valorised can be done only by the restitution by the person entitled of the amount due to him from the valorisation of the assets”.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.

Judgment 6 in Case 2350/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Giurgiu – Civil Chamber, in Case no. 5434/236/2020*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

– Decision No 7 of 15 April 2013 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law on the interpretation and application of Article 460 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1865 remains applicable also under the provisions of Article 790 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

– Failure by the creditor or the bailiff to submit an application for validation of the attachment within the time-limit laid down in Article 790 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of one month from the date on which the third party debtor was due to deposit or pay the sum sought, entail the penalty of forfeiture of the right of the bailiff to issue a new writ of attachment in the same enforcement proceedings in respect of the same garnishee and the same claim?

– If the answer to the second question is in the negative, does the issuing by the bailiff of a new writ of attachment, in the same enforcement proceedings and in respect of the same garnishee and the same claim, after the expiry of the time-limit within which he could obtain the validation of the attachment previously ordered, have the effect of causing a new time-limit of one month to run within which to obtain the validation of the attachment subsequently established, or does it have the effect of restoring the time-limit for obtaining the validation of the first attachment?

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.

Judgment 7 in Case 2295/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Timiş– Second Civil Chamber, in Case no. 15737/325/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 25 letter (b) of Law No 132/2017 on compulsory insurance for motor civil liability for damage caused to third parties by accidents involving vehicles and trams, as subsequently amended and supplemented, Article 2.528, Article 1.597 and Article 1.394 of the Civil Code, in the event of an action for recourse by the insurer against the person responsible for the accident, based on the provisions of Article 25 para. (b) of Law No 132/2017, is the extension of the limitation period provided for in Article 1.394 of the Civil Code applicable?

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 2023.

 

Judgment 8 in Case 2069/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Timiş– First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 25826/325/2018, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

If, in the land register regions where the provisions of Decree-Law No. 115/1938 on the unification of the provisions concerning land registers, as subsequently amended, have been applied, in the case of a property entered in the land register under the same act and before the entry into force of the Law on Cadastre and Real Estate Publication No. 7/1996, republished, with subsequent amendments and additions, the owner may apply to the court to change the surface area of the property in accordance with the provisions of Article 914 of the Civil Code or if this change of surface area can be obtained only after going through the procedure provided for in Article 41 of Law No. 7/1996.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 30 January 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 16 January 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 1 in Case 2149/1/2022

 

The Panel sustains the request brought by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – First Civil Chamber, in Case no. 5.637/105/2019, and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 539 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the effects of the Decision No 136 of 3 March 2021 of the Constitutional Court, in the event of deprivation of liberty during a criminal trial concluded by a final acquittal, without the illegality of the deprivation of liberty having been established in accordance with the Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the Panel for Appeal in the Interest of the Law No 15 of 18 September 2017, the acquittal, according to Article 16 para. (1) lit. a)-d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is sufficient in itself for the award of compensation to the person deprived of liberty and subsequently acquitted.

In this context, the “unjust/unlawful nature of the deprivation of liberty measures” and the “unreasonableness of the criminal charge” constitute autonomous criteria which entitle the person concerned to compensation and extend the scope of the provisions of Article 539 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 16 January 2023.

 

Judgment 2 in Case 1971/1/2022

 

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – V Civil Chamber, by judgement of 12 June 2022, in Case no. 19.409/299/2022, and in interpreting the provisions of Article 24 para. (1)-(3) and (4) of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004, as subsequently amended, establishes that:

The provisions of Article 24 para. (1)-(3) of Law No 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented, must be interpreted as meaning that the procedure for the enforcement of a final judgment of an administrative court is applicable even where the obligation laid down in that judgment is the adoption of a unilateral administrative act of an individual nature.

The provisions of Article 24 para. (3) and (4) of Law No 554/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the procedure for fixing the final amount due to the creditor by way of penalties is applicable even where, in the enforceable title, the court has established penalties applicable to the party obliged, for each day of delay, pursuant to Article 18 para. (5) of Law 554/2004.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 16 January 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 5 December 2022, 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 2059/1/2022

 

The Panel sustains the request brought by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – First Civil Chamber in Case no. 16667/3/2019*, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting the provisions of Article 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Law no. 310/2018 amending and supplementing Law no. 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as amending and supplementing other normative acts, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 492 para. (1), art. 498 and art. 501 para. (3) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the recourse is sustained in the second round of proceedings and the contested decision is anulled, the High Court of Cassation and Justice will only hold the case for trial on the merits when it would not be in a position to analyse the factual situation by reclassifying the facts or by supplementing or re-administering the evidence, otherwise the case will be sent back to the Court of Appeal or, as the case may be, to the first instance.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 5 December 2022.

Judgment 80 in Case 2112/1/2022

 

The Panel sustains the request brought by Court of Appeal of Iaşi – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 643/99/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting Art. 731 para. (13) of Law no. 7/2006 on the status of parliamentary civil servants, republished, as amended, the provision referring in the text to the provisions of Articles 83-92 of Law no. 263/2010 on the unitary system of public pensions, as amended, covers all the legal conditions for the establishment of the survivor’s pension, including the method of determining its amount – as a percentage of the average annual score achieved by the supporter, related to the pension provided for in para. (1) of Article 89 of Law No. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, as amended.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 5 December 2022.

Judgment 81 in Case 1945/1/2022

 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Specialised Tribunal of Mureş, in Case no. 3327/320/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

  1. How can the court’s obligation “to apply as a matter of priority – the solution of adaptation of the contract” – established in the light of the provisions of Article 3 together with those of Article 4 para. (4) of Law no. 77 of 28 April 2016, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 330 of 28 April 2016 – as amended by Law no. 52 of 13 May 2020, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 386 of 13 May 2020, by the recital in paragraph 48 of Decision no. 432 of 17 June 2021 of the Constitutional Court of Romania, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 905 of 21 September 2021 – with the possibility for the consumer to claim the adjustment of a credit agreement concluded with a professional when that credit agreement has previously been declared to be due in advance, the claim thus arising – represented by the obligation to repay the entire credit, together with the interest on the agreement and other charges – being pursued in the context of enforcement proceedings for the pursuit of the mortgaged property (dwelling), without it being valued?
  2. In the same circumstances, what would be the objective criteria for identifying the “social utility of the continued performance of the contract”, which seems to be enshrined as a principle by the Constitutional Court of Romania in the decision mentioned above?

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 5 December 2022.

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 14 November 2022, 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 75 in Case 593/1/2022

 

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Dolj – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in Case no. 7578/63/2021, for a preliminary ruling and in interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 154 para. (1), (6) and (6)1, Art. 163 para. (5), Art. 164 par. (4) and Article 175 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, establishes that:

Carrying out the summons procedure, in accordance with the provisions of Article 154 para. (6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the party has requested and indicated the appropriate dates for this purpose, constitutes a principal means of service of procedural documents, without being conditional on the procedure being conducted in letter form in accordance with the provisions of Art. 154 para. (1) of the same act.

The act of summoning the party to the proceedings, in a manner other than that invoked by the application to the court, is void under the provisions of Article 175 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure if, by failing to comply with the method of service of the procedural document, the party has suffered damage which can only be remedied by its annulment, without being subject to the use of the procedure of false registration, pursuant to Article 163 para. (5) and Art. 164 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 14 November 2022.

Judgment 76 in Case 1818/1/2022

 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – IV Civil Chamber, in Case no. 21478/299/2020, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“If, in interpreting the provisions of Article 781 para. (5) letter (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the notion of sums relating to the payment of future salary entitlements refers to those sums whose purpose is unequivocally established in this way before or at the latest at the time of the establishment of the attachment (for example, by describing the account as being intended for the payment of salary entitlements) or whether this particular purpose can be assessed by the garnishee subsequently on the basis of a request made by the debtor for the release of sums for the payment of salary entitlements.

If, in interpreting the provisions of Article 781 para. (5) letter (c) in conjunction with Art. 784 para. (1) last sentence of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the attachment by the garnishee of sums held in an account of the debtor, the garnishee may, at the request of the debtor, release sums of money requested by the latter for the payment of salary rights.”

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 14 November 2022.

 

Judgment 77 in Case 1909/1/2022

 

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bacău – I Civil Chamber, in Case no. 3413/110/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“Art. 28 para. (1) letter o) of Law No. 223/2015 on State Military Pensions, as amended and supplemented, be interpreted as excluding from the basis for calculating the military pension the TBC/HIV bonus granted on a permanent basis to the former employee?”.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 14 November 2022.

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 November 2022, 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 72 in Case 1508/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Cluj – III Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, by judgement of 16 May 2022, in Case no. 2.194/100/2020, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

If the closing of the conventions and the payment of the subsidies provided for in Article 85 para. (1) of Law No 76/2002 on the unemployment insurance system and the stimulation of employment, as subsequently amended and supplemented, is conditional only on the submission of an application by the employer within 12 months of the date of conclusion of the employment contract with a person falling within the categories referred to in that legal text, or whether, in addition, during that 12-month period there must also be budgetary funds/credits approved for that purpose by the senior authorising officers?

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 7 November 2022.

Judgment 73 in Case 1572/1/2022

 

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – II Civil Chamber, by judgement of 9 June 2022, in Case no. 1.653/110/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting the provisions of Article 5 para. (1) letters (a) and (b) final sentence of Law No 309/2002 on the recognition and granting of certain rights to persons who served their military service in the General Directorate of the Labour Service between 1950 and 1961, as subsequently amended and supplemented, surviving widows who have not remarried are entitled not only to exemption from the payment of the radio and television subscription fee, but also to free medical assistance and medicines, both in outpatient treatment and during hospitalisation.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 7 November 2022.

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

High Court of Review and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 31 October 2022, the High Court of Review 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 #69 in Case #1071/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the First Civil Chamber of the High Court of Review and Justice in Case #7.467/63/2019 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

„Whether in interpreting and applying the stipulations of Art. 1.385 para. (1) and (3) of the Civil Code, the loss caused by the perpetration of an offence stipulated under Art. 23 para. (1) of Government Emergency Order # 77/2009 on the Organization and Operation of Gambling Operations, in the version in effect as of the date when the offense was committed, is presumed by law by the stipulations of Art. 13 para. (1), Art. 14 para. (2) item b) point (i) and Art. 15 para. (6) item a) of the Annex to the same regulatory act.”

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

Returned in public hearing today the 31st of October 2022.

Judgment #70 in Case #1626/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the First Civil Chamber of Craiova Court of Appeals in Case #9790/225/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether in interpreting and applying the stipulations of Art. 94 point 1 item k), Art. 125, Art. 651 para. (3) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, it is deemed that an application requesting for the acknowledgment of the statute of limitation of a right to obtain the enforcement of an enforceable title represents an action for claims under the ordinary law in the meaning of Art. 94 point 1 item k) of the Civil Procedure Code, subject to the value criterion, or an enforcement claim subject to the special procedure rules in this area.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 31st of October 2022.

Judgment #71 in Case #1725/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Second Civil Chamber of Constanţa Tribunal in Case #3273/212/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether a legal assistance agreement for the lawyer profession, as regulated by Law # 51/1995 on the Organization and Practice of the Lawyer Profession, as republished and as subsequently amended and supplemented, represents or not an enforceable title for delay penalties.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 31st of October 2022.

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

OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS

 

High Court of Review and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 24 October 2022, the High Court of Review 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 #65 in Case #1319/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Eighth Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigation of Bucharest Court of Appeals by a Ruling dated 29 March 2022 returned in Case #20.661/3/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether, based on a corroborated interpretation of the provisions of Art. 2 para. (1) items a) and p) of Administrative Litigation Law # 554/2004, as subsequently amended and supplemented, of Art. 1 and Art. 2 of Political Parties Law # 14/2003, as republished, by reference to the provisions of Art. 5 item d) of Government Emergency Order # 195/2005 on Environmental Protection, as approved with amendments and additions by Law # 265/2006, as subsequently amended and supplemented, one can infer the standing capacity to sue of the plaintiff political party in filing an action requesting for the nullification of an urbanism certificate issued by the local public authority.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 24th of October 2022.

Judgment #66 in Case #1337/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the First Civil Chamber of Brăila Tribunal by a Ruling dated 9 June 2022 rendered in Case #342/228/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether based on the interpretation of Art. 234 para. (1) item c) of Law # 207/2015 on the Tax Procedure Code, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and of Art. 12 para. (2) of Government Order # 2/2001 on the Legal Status of Misdemeanors, as subsequently amended and supplemented, by reference to Constitutional Court’s Decision # 228/2007, a decision of the Constitutional Court that established the unconstitutionality of a normative act or of an article contained by a normative act criminalizing and sanctioning minor offences, has as effect the termination of enforcement, and whether the sanctions applied under the legal norm declared unconstitutional will no longer be enforced.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 24th of October 2022.

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

OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS

High Court of Review and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 17 October 2022, the High Court of Review 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:

 

Judgment #59 in Case #1442/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Second Chamber for Civil, Administrative and Tax Litigation of Bacău Court of Appeals in Case #2278/110/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether the provisions regulating the case of suspension of the statute of limitation provided by Art. 41 of Appendix #1 to President of Romania’s Decree #195/2020 on Instating a State of Emergency on the Territory of Romania and by Art. 62 of Appendix #1 to President of Romania’s Decree #240/2020 on Extending the State of Emergency on the Territory of Romania fall under the legal premises for the suspension of running of an enforcement’s statute of limitation provided by Art. 708 para. (1) point 4 of the Civil Procedure Code.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 17th of October 2022.

 

Judgment #60 in Case #1509/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the First Civil Chamber of Suceava Court of Appeals in Case #1649/40/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether the provisions Art. 5 para. (3) of Appendix #II, Chapter II, of Framework Law #153/2017 on the Remuneration of Staff Paid from Public Funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, should be interpreted as excluding the possibility to award an increase for extremely hazardous conditions provided by Art. 7 item b) of Appendix #II, Chapter II, of Framework Law #153/2017 for work performed by physicians during their on-call shifts under a part-time employment agreement.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 17th of October 2022.

 

Judgment #61 in Case #1545/1/2022

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Employment and Social Insurance Litigation Chamber of Iași Court of Appeals in Case #3631/99/2021 for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the stipulations of Art. 2 para. (1) item c) and Art. 36 para. (3) of Framework Law #153/2017 on the Remuneration of Staff Paid from Public Funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the technical, economic, social and administrative staff of public hospitals fully funded from their own revenues that are under the subordination, the authority or the coordination of the Health Ministry is remunerated in compliance with Appendix #VII to Framework Law #153/2017.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 17th of October 2022.

 

Judgment #62 in Case #1603/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber of Craiova Court of Appeals in Case #2742/95/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether in interpreting the stipulations of Art. 4 and points 1, 7, 11-16 of the Note to Appendix #1 to Law #138/1999 on the Remuneration and other Rights of the Military Staff of National Defense, Public Order and National Security Public Institutions, and on the Award of Salary Rights to the Civil Staff of such Institutions, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in respect of the ranking coefficients for positions corresponding to a colonel rank, the notion of “similar position” (corresponding to) the colonel rank, includes both management and execution positions.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 17th of October 2022.

 

Judgment #63 in Case #1585/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Second Civil Chamber of Suceava Tribunal in Case #164/334/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether in case of an action filed by an MTPL insurer against its own insured party, the stipulations of Art. 58 item b) of Law #136/1995 on Insurance and Reinsurance in Romania, as subsequently amended and supplemented, are interpreted as meaning that the nature and term of the statute of limitation of the substantive right to file an action is of 2 years, as per the stipulations of Art. 2.519 para. (1) of the Civil Code applicable to the right to action based on an insurance relationship, or of 3 years, as stipulated by the stipulations of Art. 2.517 and/or Art. 2.528 para. (1) of the Civil Code applicable to recourse actions/civil tort liability actions.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 17th of October 2022.

 

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

OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS

High Court of Review and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 3 October 2022, the High Court of Review 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:

 

Judgment #54 in Case #1153/1/2022

The Panel sustains the request brought by the First Civil Chamber of Bacău Court of Appeals in Case #2316/103/2019.

In interpreting and applying the stipulations of Art. 56 para. (1) item c) and Art. 56 para. (2) of Law #53/2003 – the Labor Code, as republished and subsequently amended and supplemented, it establishes that:

The dismissal of an application for retirement for age limit by a reduction of the standard retirement age under the review procedure set forth by Art. 107 of Law #263/2010 on the Uniform Pension System, as subsequently amended and supplemented, triggers the application of the stipulations in the Civil Code regulating the nullity of legal documents in respect of the acknowledgment of a case of termination for convenience of an individual employment agreement issued by an employer under the stipulations of Art. 56 para. (2), corroborated with Art. 56 para. (1) item c) of the Labor Code.

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

Returned in public session today, the 3rd of October 2022.

 

Judgment #55 in Case #1206/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Eighth Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigation of Bucharest Court of Appeals in Case #10474/3/2018 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether the stipulations of Art. 7 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance #90/2017 on Tax and Budgetary Steps, Amending and Supplementing Normative Acts and Prorogating Specific Terms, as approved with additions by Law #80/2018, as subsequently amended and supplemented, by correlation with the stipulations of Art. 38 para. (3) item a) of Framework Law #153/2017 on the Remuneration of Staff Paid from Public Funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, are interpreted as meaning that they may not have as effect a decrease in the net income of persons falling under their scope.

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

Returned in public session today, the 3rd of October 2022.

 

Judgment no.56 in Case #1055/1/2022

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Second Civil Chamber of Timişoara Court of Appeals in Case #3087/30/2015/a36 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

  1. Whether the application of the stipulations of Art. 2661and Art. 2663 of Law #207/2015 on the Tax Procedure Code, as subsequently amended and supplemented, introduced by Government Ordinance #30/2017 amending and supplementing Law #207/2015 on the Tax Procedure Code, as approved with amendments and additions by Law #150/2018, is compatible to Law #85/2014 on Insolvency Prevention and Insolvency Proceedings, as subsequently amended and supplemented.
  2. What are the punctual enforcement measures that can be implemented under the Tax Procedure Code? Can one order a distraint against the single insolvency account, by derogation from the stipulations of Art. 163 para. (3) of Law #85/2014?
  3. Whether according to the stipulations of Art. 352 para. (4) of the Tax Procedure Code, enforcements terminated ope legis under Art. 75 of Law #85/2014 are deemed as pending.

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

Returned in public session today, the 3 October 2022.

 

Judgment #57 in Case #1141/1/2022

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Third Chamber for Civil, Minor and Family Law Cases of Bucharest Court of Appeals in Case #25029/3/2020 for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting the stipulations of Art. 21 para. (6) of Law #165/2013 on Steps for Finalizing the Process of Restitution, In-kind or by Equivalent, of Real Properties Abusively Taken during the Communist Regime in Romania, as subsequently amended and supplemented, as amended by Law #193/2021 approving Government Emergency Ordinance #72/2020 on Suspending the Application of the stipulations of Art. 21 para. (6) of Law #165/2013 on Steps for Finalizing the Process of Restitution, In-kind or by Equivalent, of Real Properties Abusively Taken during the Communist Regime in Romania and Setting Transitory Steps, establishes that, in a litigation involving an appeal filed against a compensation decision issued by the National Commission for the Compensation of Real Properties, the stipulations of Art. 21 para. (6) of Law #165/2013, as amended by Law #193/2021, are interpreted as meaning that the real property will be evaluated by reference to the grid of public notaries valid in the year preceding the issuance of the compensation decision by the National Commission for the Compensation of Real Properties that is subject to the judicial appeal.

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

Returned in public session today, the 3 October 2022.

 

Judgment #58 in Case #1166/1/2022

The Panel sustains the request brought by the First Civil Chamber of Alba Tribunal in Case #2640/298/2020 for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the stipulations of Art. 4 para. (1) of Law #17/2014 on Steps Regulating Sales of Agricultural Land Located outside the Built-up Area and Amending Law #268/2001 on the Privatization of Companies Holding under Administration Lands that Are Publicly and Privately Owned by the State and on the Creation of the State Domain Agency, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and Art. 13 para. (5) of Cadaster and Real Estate Registration Law #7/1996, as republished and subsequently amended and supplemented, the observance of the preemption right provided by Art. 4 para. (1) of Law #17/2014 is not required at the time of conclusion of an agreement regarding the disposition of possession on an agricultural land located outside the built-up area.

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

Returned in public session today, the 3 October 2022.

  

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

OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS

Loading...