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

High Court of Review and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

 

In its session of 26 September 2022, the High Court of Review 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:

Decision #50 in Case #1129/1/2022

 Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigation of the Oradea Court of Appeals by a Ruling dated 13 May 2022 returned in Case #2.670/111/CA/2021-R for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

What is the moment when the 3-month term set by the stipulations of Art. I para (1) of Government Emergency Order #92/2020 Setting Active Support Steps Intended for Employees and Employers in the Context of the Epidemiological Situation Generated by the Spreading of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus and Amending Normative Acts starts running?

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

Returned in public session today, the 26th of September 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 19 September 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 #45 in Case #1001/1/2022

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber of Oradea Court of Appeals by a Ruling dated 15 April 2022 rendered in Case #3.722/111/CA/2020, and, as a result, establishes that:

Based on the interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 161 of the Norms for the Application of Provisions on the Award of Utility Contracts/Framework Agreements of Law #99/2016 on Utility Procurement, as approved by Government Decision #394/2016, the version in effect as of 5 March 2020, the 14-day term set for the contracting entity has the legal status of a procedural, legal, mandatory and relative term.

Failure to comply with the term does not trigger the sanction of nullification of the finding document.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 19th of September 2022.

Judgment #46 in Case #944/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the First Civil Chamber of Suceava Tribunal in Case #8541/314/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law: „Whether the reference to para. (2) of Art. 1 of Government Emergency Order #71/2009 on the Payment of Amounts Specified in Enforceable Titles Concerning the Award of Salary Rights to Staff in the Budgetary Sector, as approved with amendments by Law #230/2011, to para. (1) of the same article is interpreted as meaning that the term provided by para. (1) is represented by several successive terms, but individual by reference to the end of 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 for each installment detailed under items a)-e), or is interpreted as a Uniform term, by reference only to the end of 2016, as final date for the debt payment in installments”.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 19th of September 2022.

Judgment #47 in Case #1003/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Employment and Social Insurance Litigation Chamber of Craiova Court of Appeals in Case #2187/95/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether the stipulations of Art. 158 para. (6) and (7) of Law #263/2010 on the Uniform Public Pension System, as subsequently amended and supplemented, apply also to the situation where work seniority in work groups is proven under the conditions of Art. 158 para. (31) of the law, based on the employment record.

Whether a check of the inaccurate or incomplete nature of registrations in the employment record, in the meaning of Art. 158 para. (31) of the law, implies also a check of the lawfulness of inclusion of the work in the first and/or second work group in the meaning of Art. 158 para. (6) and (7) of Law #263/2010.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 19th of September 2022.

Judgment #48 in Case #1005/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the First Civil Chamber of Maramureş Tribunal in Case #1572/336/2016* for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

A clarification of the interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 28 of Law #1/2000 on the Recreation of Ownership Rights over Agricultural and Forestry Lands Requested under the stipulations of Land Law #18/1991 and of Law #169/1997, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in order for us to know whether these provisions, as amended by Art. I point 31 of Title VI of Law #247/2005 on Reforms in the Property and Justice Areas, and on Adjacent Steps, as subsequently amended and supplemented, allow for the creation of new compossessorates to continue the only associative form of this type existing before 1948, under circumstances where, under Law #1/2000 – its initial version, part of this associative form of property or its successors created an associative form and acquired the status of legal entity; in case of a negative answer, which are the legal consequences on the subsequently created associative form and on the ownership right acknowledged to it?

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

Returned in public hearing today the 19th of September 2022.

Judgment #49 in Case #884/1/2022

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Mixed Chamber for Administrative and Tax, Employment and Social Insurance Litigation of Cluj Tribunal in Case #1782/211/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether one can consider that the stipulations of Art. 31 para. (1) of Government Order #2/2001 on the Legal Status of Misdemeanors, as approved with amendments and supplements by Law #180/2002, as subsequently amended and supplemented, derogate from the stipulations of Art. 204 para. (1) of the Civil Procedure Code in the sense that, in case of filing of an administrative complaint, a petitioner does not have a possibility to amend their motion to sue, including by adding new grounds for the unlawfulness/ungroundedness of the finding minutes, after the expiry of the term of 15 days after the service of the misdemeanor minutes.

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

Returned in public hearing today the 19th of September 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 hearing of 27 June 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in each of the cases, settled four referrals for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgments:

 

Judgment no. 40 in case no. 851/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Iași Court of Appeals – Chamber for Employment and Social Insurance Litigation, in case no. 5475/99/2020, for a preliminary ruling concerning the clarification of the following law matter: 

Whether based on the interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. 306 para. (2) and Art. 328 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the sanction of removing from the pieces of evidence of a document established to be forged, which occurs as a result of failure to appear in court of the party having lodged it with the case file on the term set for a check of such document, is based on a legal presumption that cannot be rebutted in appeal by contrary proof, or on a presumption that can be rebutted in appeal, based on  the devolutive nature of this mean of appeal, in light of Judgment no. 9 of 30 March 2020 of the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Settlement of Appeals in the Interest of the Law, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania no. 548 of 25 June 2020, and on the application of the provisions of Art. 479 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code referring to the restoration or supplementing of evidence produced in the court of first instance.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code. 

Rendered in public hearing today, 27 June 2022.

Judgment no. 41 in case no. 795/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Buzău Tribunal – Second Chamber for Civil, Administrative and Tax Litigation, in case no. 14029/200/2020, for a preliminary ruling concerning the clarification of the following law matter: 

„Whether the value of a remunerated mandate contract consists in the value of the receivable for the recovery of which the mandate contract was concluded or in the value of the attorney-at-fact’s remuneration.”

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code. 

Rendered in public hearing today, 27 June 2022.

 

Judgment no. 42 in case no. 815/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Prahova Tribunal – First Civil Chamber, in case no. 2542/331/2020*, for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of Art. 6 para. (1), by reference to Art. 4 para. (1) item a) and b) and Art. 5 para. (1) and (2) of Law no. 77/2016 on Datio in Solutum of Real Properties for the Extinction of Liabilities Assumed under Loans, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in order to establish: 

„1. Whether the suspensive effect set by the provisions of Art. 6 para. (1) of Law no. 77/2016 applies ipso jure in case of blatant non-fulfillment of the admissibility requirements provided by Art. 4 para. (1) item a) and b) and/or of the form requirements applicable to the datio in solutum notification set forth by the provisions of Art. 5 para. (1) and (2) of Law no. 77/2016; 

2. Whether the non-fulfillment of the requirements provided by Art. 4 para. (1) item a) and b) and/or of the form requirements applicable to the datio in solutum notification set by the provisions of Art. 5 para. (1) and (2) of Law no. 77/2016 can be appealed by the bailiff under the enforcement proceeding by virtue of its active role.

 3. Whether the enforcement court vested with the settlement of a challenge on enforcement, whereby the party claims the non-fulfillment of the requirements provided by Art. 4 para. (1) item a) and b) and/or of the form requirements applicable to the datio in solutum notification set by the provisions of Art. 5 para. (1) and (2) of Law no. 77/2016 can analyz the admissibility requirements indicated in the precedent under such proceeding.”

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code. 

Rendered in public hearing today, 27 June 2022.

Judgment no. 43 in case no. 888/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Bucharest Tribunal – Sixth Civil Chamber, in case no. 26110/299/2020, for a preliminary ruling concerning the clarification of the following law matter: 

„Based on the application of the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 January 2016, rendered in joined cases C-359/14 “ERGO Insurance” SE versus “If P&C Insurance” AS and C-475/14 “Gjensidige Baltic” AAS versus “PZU Lietuva” UAB DK, a review of the Romanian law, in order to establish whether and to what extent the MTPL insurer of a towing vehicle can subrogate itself against the MTPL insurer of the semi-trailer, should be limited by the ordinary law norms set by Art. 2.210 of the Civil Code, or one should consider the special norms in the MTPL area issued by the Financial Supervisory Authority in respect of the right to regress.” 

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code. 

Rendered in public hearing today, 27 June 2022.

After the considerations are drafted, and the judgments are signed, they will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.

Information and Public Relations Office

High Court of Review and Justice 

PRESS RELEASE

 

In its hearing of 6 June 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in each of the cases, settled four referrals for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgments:

 

Judgment no. 33 in case no. 629/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Galaţi Court of Appeals – Chamber for Employment and Social Insurance Litigation, in case no. 303/121/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter: 

According to the interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. 107 para. (1) of Law no. 263/2010 on the Unitary Public Pension System, as subsequently amended and supplemented, can one amend, through revision, the full contribution period used, which was not appealed at the time of setting the pension rights, as a result of a judgment rendered in the interest of the law by the High Court of Review and Justice ?

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 6 June 2022.

Judgment no. 34 in case no. 658/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Cluj Court of Appeals – Fourth Chamber for Employment and Social Insurance Litigation, in case no. 2744/117/2020, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter: 

Are the provisions of Art. 1 para. (3) and Art. 38 para. (6) of Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the Remuneration of Staff Paid from Public Funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, which include the wording “as a result of regulated salary increases” interpreted as also applying to salary increases acknowledged by court judgments or only to salary increases established by normative acts (laws, emergency ordinances) or by administrative acts of budget managers?

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 6 June 2022.

 

Judgment no. 35 in case no. 679/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Cluj Court of Appeals – Third Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigation, in case no. 2281/117/2021, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter: 

Whether according to the interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. 154 para. (1) item i) of the Tax Code; of Art. 2 para. (1) item a), of Art. 17 para. (2), and of Art. 61 para. (2) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 158/2005 on Sick Leaves and Health Insurance Indemnities, as approved with amendments and additions by Law no. 399/2006, as subsequently amended and supplemented; of Art. 37 para. (1) of Government Ordinance no. 38/2003 on Remuneration and Other Rights of Policemen, as approved with amendments and additions by Law no. 353/2003, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the professional category of policemen, during the period while they are in sick leaves for temporary work incapacity, awarded as per Government Emergency Ordinance no. 158/2005, benefits from salary or indemnity for such medical certificates and whether such right is exempted or not from the payment of social health insurance contributions.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 6 June 2022.

Judgment no. 36 in case no. 585/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Iaşi Court of Appeals – Civil Chamber, in case no. 98/99/2020/a1, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter: 

Whether based on the interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. 180 of Law no. 85/2014 on Insolvency Prevention and Insolvency Proceedings, as subsequently amended and supplemented, an action filed based on the provisions of Art. 169 of the same law can be settled after the insolvency proceeding closure.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 6 June 2022.

After the considerations are drafted, and the judgments are signed, they will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.

 

Information and Public Relations Office

High Court of Review and Justice 

PRESS RELEASE

In its hearing of 16 May 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in the case, settled a referral for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgment:

 

Judgment no. 29 in case no. 323/1/2022 

The Panel admits a referral filed by Timişoara Court of Appeals – Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigation, in case no. 1.046/115/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

According to the interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. XV para. (11), by reference to Art. XV para. (1) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 30/2020 Amending and Supplementing Specific Normative Acts, and Setting Steps in the Social Protection Area in the Context of the Epidemiological Situation Caused by the Spreading of SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the requirement regarding the “collection of income by minimum 25% lower compared to the monthly average for 2019” does not include the case of not earning income in 2019 as a result of being qualified as a lawyer only starting 2020, namely before the state of emergency was declared by Decree no. 195/2020 of the President of Romania Declaring a State of Emergency in the Territory of Romania, but only the period after the date of 1 January 2020.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 16 May 2022. 

After the considerations are drafted, and the judgment is signed, it will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.

Information and Public Relations Office

High Court of Review and Justice 

PRESS RELEASE 

 

In its hearing of 9 May 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in each of the cases, settled five referrals for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgments:

Judgment no. 24 in case no. 458/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Bucharest Court of Appeals – Fifth Civil Chamber, in case no. 8720/299/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter: 

The manner of interpreting the applicability of the provisions of Art. 2.551-2.553 of the Civil Code in case of terms set based on calendar days in agreements between parties.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.

 

Judgment no. 25 in case no. 460/1/2022 

The panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Bucharest Court of Appeals – Fifth Civil Chamber, in case no. 2921/3/2020 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter: 

Whether in actions claiming the award of moral damages filed against an insurance company and BAAR (the action requesting the court to order the respondents to jointly pay), the plaintiffs have a possibility to choose between the award of penalties in an amount of 0.2% per day of delay set forth by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 54/2016 on Mandatory Civil Liability Insurance for Car Owners for Damages Caused to Third Parties through Car and Tram Accidents, and the statutory penalty interest stipulated by the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 13/2011 on Statutory Interest and Penalty Rate for Financial Obligations and Regulating some Financial and Tax Steps in the Banking Area, as approved by Law no. 43/2012, as subsequently supplements, and by the Civil Code.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.

Judgment no. 26 in case no. 259/1/2022

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Bucharest Court of Appeals – Third Chamber for Civil, Minors and Family Cases, in case no. 30797/3/2018, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matters:

A. The interpretation of effects of Decision no. 189 of 18 March 2021 of the Romanian Constitutional Court, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania no. 466 of 4 May 2021, Declaring Unconstitutional the Legal Provisions of Art. 21 para. (6) of Law no. 165/2013 on Steps for Finalizing the Process of Restitution, in Kind or by Equivalent, of Properties Taken Abusively during the Communist Regime in Romania, as subsequently amended and supplemented, as amended by Law no. 219/2020 amending and supplementing Law no. 165/2013 on Steps for Finalizing the Process of Restitution, in Kind or by Equivalent, of Properties Taken Abusively during the Communist Regime in Romania, in the sense of establishing whether the fact that these legal provisions have been declared unconstitutional has as effect the reinstatement of the legal norm in its form prior to the time when it has been declared unconstitutional, meaning of Art. 21 para. (6) of Law no. 165/2013, as amended by Art. I point 2 of Law no. 22/2020 amending Law no. 165/2013 on Steps for Finalizing the Process of Restitution, in Kind or by Equivalent, of Properties Taken Abusively during the Communist Regime in Romania and supplementing Article 4 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 94/2000 on the Retrocession of Real Properties Having Belonged to Religious Cults of Romania.

B. If the answer to the first question is negative, based on Art. 5 paras. (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, in applying Art. 1 para. (2) and Art. 16 of Law no. 165/2013, can the value of compensation be established in compliance with the legal provisions referring to similar situations stipulated by Art. 566 or Art. 1.640 of the Civil Code or in compliance with the general law principles, or by applying the notarial grids in effect as of the date when the case is finally adjudicated?

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.

 

Judgment no. 27 in case no. 353/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Maramureş Tribunal – First Civil Chamber, in case no. 651/319/2018, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter: 

Clarification of the interpretation and application of the provisions of Art. 51-53 of Land Law no. 18/1991, as republished and as subsequently amended and supplemented, based on the considerations of the Constitutional Court’s Decision no. 44 of 31 January 2017, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania no. 211 of 28 March 2017, and Decision no. 139 of 27 March 2018, published in Part I of Official Journal of Romania no. 638 of 23 July 2018, i.e., whether a sue petition requesting the court to order the restoration of an ownership right is admissible in a case where the administrative procedure has not been finalized and in the absence of a decision of the county commission for setting private ownership rights over land.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.

Judgment no. 28 in case no. 351/1/2022 

The Panel admits a referral filed by Cluj Court of Appeals – Second Civil Chamber in case no. 337/112/2018/a7 for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that: 

The provisions of Art. 45 para. (1) item k)and o) of Law no. 85/2014 on Insolvency Prevention and Insolvency Proceedings, as subsequently amended and supplemented, must be interpreted in a sense that the bankruptcy judge can confirm a reorganization plan only to the extent that there is a resolution of the meeting of creditors approving such reorganization plan. 

The provisions of Art. 138 para. (4) and Art. 139 para. (1) of Law no. 85/2014 must be interpreted in the sense that the inability to adopt a resolution in the meeting of creditors convened for the approval of the reorganization plan due to a lack of quorum due to the non-attendance of failure duly convened creditors of at least two meetings having the same agenda is not equivalent to a negative vote on the reorganization plan.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 9 May 2022.

After the considerations are drafted, and the judgments are signed, they will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.

Information and Public Relations Office

High Court of Review and Justice 

PRESS RELEASE

 

During the hearing of 11 April 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in the case, settled a referral for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgment:

 

Judgment no. 19 in case no.405/1/2022 

The Panel admits a referral filed by Ploieşti Court of Appeals – First Civil Chamber and, as a result, establishes that:

Based on the interpretation of Art. 85 para. (1) of Law no. 263/2010 and of Art. 3 para. (1) item v) of Law no. 263/2010, the standard retirement age for the award of a successor pension is both the standard retirement age stipulated in Annex no. 5 of Law no. 263/2010 and the standard retirement age diminished under the law.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 11 April 2022. 

After the considerations are drafted, and the judgment is signed, it will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.

Information and Public Relations Office

High Court of Review and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

In its hearing of 4 April 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in the case, settled a referral for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgment:

 

Judgment no. 18 in case no. 3160/1/2021 

The panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Piteşti Court of Appeals – Second Chamber for Civil, Administrative and Tax Disputes in case no. 1.587/46/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following law matter: 

Whether the provisions of Art. 4 para. (5) of Law no. 55/2020 on Steps for Preventing and Fighting the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemics, as subsequently amended and supplemented, also apply to the validity of the indication to use in healthcare units biocide products for which reports on testing the biocide effectiveness were not prepared in compliance with Art. 71 of Joint Order no. 10/368/11/2010 of the Minister of Health and the President of the National Sanitary, Veterinary and Food Safety Authority approving the Procedure for Approval of Biocide Products that Are Marketed in the Territory of Romania, as subsequently amended and supplemented.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 4 April 2022.

After the considerations are drafted, and the judgment is signed, it will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.

Information and Public Relations Office

High Court of Review and Justice 

PRESS RELEASE

 

In its hearing of 21 March 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in the case, settled a referral for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgment:

 

Judgment no. 16 in case no. 123/1/2022 

The Panel dismisses, as inadmissible, a referral filed by Galați Court of Appeals – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in case no. 6226/118/2017, for a preliminary ruling concerning the following law matters: 

Whether according to the interpretation and application of Art. 75 para. (1) of Law no. 85/2014 on Insolvency Prevention and Insolvency Proceedings, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and of Art. 53 para. (1) of Law no. 101/2016 on Remedies and Means of Appeal in the Area of Award of Public Procurement Contracts, of Utility Contracts and of Work and Service Concession Contracts and on the Organization and Operation of the National Council for the Settlement of Complaints, in the form in effect in the period between 26 May 2016 and 21 December 2017, the entering into insolvency of a consortium leader, which is a party to a public procurement contract, triggers the suspension of the action for the enforcement of the public procurement contract filed by such party prior to entering insolvency.

Whether according to the interpretation and application of Art. 105 para. (1) and (2) and of Art. 106 of Law no. 85/2014, the judicial administrator has the competence to check the merits of the contractual fault, to order the cancellation of claims and of documents issued by the parties or of receivables deriving from a public procurement contract, such check being previously subject to a case pending with a court panel notified by the debtor who was subject afterwards to an insolvency proceeding under Art. 53 para. (1) of Law no. 101/2016, in the form in effect in the period between 26 May 2016 and 21 December 2017.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 21 March 2022. 

After the considerations are drafted, and the judgment is signed, it will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.

 

Information and Public Relations Office

High Court of Review and Justice 

PRESS RELEASE

During the hearing of 14 March 2022, the Panel for the Clarification of Law Matters in the Civil Law Area of the High Court of Review and Justice, legally established in the case, settled a referral for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of law matters, and rendered the following judgment:

 

Judgment no. 15 in case no. 2990/1/2021

The Panel admits a referral filed by the High Court of Review and Justice – Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigation, through a Ruling of 24 November 2021, rendered in case no. 391/39/2021, for a preliminary ruling and, as a result, establishes that:

The provisions of Art. II of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 77/2018 supplementing Art. 67 of Law no. 317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy are not of nature to confer the Government a direct prerogative to make appointments in such positions and to give rise to legitimate doubts in respect of the use of prerogatives and functions of the Judicial Inspection as an instrument of pressure on the work of judges and prosecutors or of political control on such activities.

Mandatory, as per the provisions of Art. 521 para. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rendered in public hearing today, 14 March 2022.

After the considerations are drafted, and the judgment is signed, it will be published in Part I of the Official Journal of Romania.

Information and Public Relations Office