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:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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
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
