High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 7 June 2021, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each Case, considered ten requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #38 in Case #661/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber IX for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in Case #28560/3/2019, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
The interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (1) and Art. 3 in Government Decision #1086/2004 establishing the specific extra pay and amounts for per diem, accommodation and meals granted to personnel participating in missions outside the territory of the Romanian state, not published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, in the sense of establishing whether the pay rights regulated by those stipulations (per diem in hard currency and the amount for the facilitation of staying in touch with family and recreation) should be granted by the Romanian state without being conditioned by the payment of those same rights by the international organizations under whose umbrella the mission is taking place, even if they have different names and amounts but are paid for the same purpose.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #39 in Case #861/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Brăila – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case #9487/196/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
What is the interpretation of Art. 906 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code, and respectively establish whether a creditor can still ask the Court to set the final amount owed them by the debtor as penalties in the hypothesis where the debtor pays their obligation within less than 3 months of the date of communication of the judgment that was returned on the basis of para. (2) or (3) of Art. 906 in the Civil Procedure Code.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #40 in Case #944/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Oradea – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case #357/111/2019, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
By relying on the stipulations of Art. 60 para. (3) in Law #223/2015 on Military Pension, in the version that was in force on 30 June 2017, after updating pension rights as under Art. 60 para. (1) in Law #223/2015, in the version that was in force on 30 June 2017, performed on the basis of Law #152/2017 Approving Government Emergency Order #99/2016 on certain measures for the pay of personnel from public funds, for the prorogation of certain deadlines and for certain tax and budget measures, as subsequently supplemented, should the final calculation of pension rights also include the mounts resulting from the 5% increase regulated by the stipulations of Art. 14 para. (2) in Government Emergency Order #57/2015 on the pay of personnel from public funds in the year 2016, the prorogation of certain deadlines and certain tax and budget measures, as amended and supplemented.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #41 in Case #636/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Harghita – Chamber for Civil Matters, in Case #4184/258/2018, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
Is Art. 55 para. (1) in Law #4/1953 – the Family Code, as republished with amendments and supplements, in the version preceding the amendment brought under Law #288/2007 that amended and supplemented Law #4/1953 – the Family Code, still applicable in the light of Art. 8 in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Rights?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June 2020.
Decision #42 in Case #635/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Iași – Chamber I for Civil Matters in Case #1187/244/2019 for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
In the interpretation of Art. 123 para. (1), (3) and (9) in Law #85/2014 legal action is not admissible for termination of contracts for successive performance maintained by the judicial administrator or the liquidator, as filed in regular procedure after the moment the insolvency procedure is opened, on grounds of the debtor defendant’s failure to comply with their contract obligations consisting of payment of amounts owed before the procedure was opened.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #43 in Case #643/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Tribunal Bucharest – Chamber V for Civil Matters in Case #34108/299/2013* and consequently rules that:
In the interpretation and application of Art. 2279 and Art. 2321 in the Civil Code, corroborated with Art. 120 in Government Emergency Order #99/2006, a letter of guarantee issued by a credit institution constitutes an enforceable title only if issued as collateral for a credit contract.
Obligatory, as under Art. 519 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #44 in Case #834/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VI for Civil Matters, in Case #12297/3/2016/a28, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
“What is the interpretation of the stipulations in Art. 5 para. (1) item 21 and Art. 123 para. (9) in Law #85/2014 on Procedures to Prevent Insolvency and on Insolvency, namely can we consider as current debt the interest accrued after the opening of the procedure in the situation of a credit contract (concluded prior to the motion to open the procedure but maintained after the opening of the procedure) signed with an interest rate established depending on a periodical reference index and which is not known at the date of the opening of the procedure so that the creditor can calculate the amount of interest due after that moment.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #45 in Case #932/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VIII for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in Case #971/2/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
1. In the interpretation and application of Art. 50 para. (1) in Government Order #39/2005 on Cinematography, should the notion ‘failure to comply with the stipulations in this Order concerning the granting of a direct credit for production’ be interpreted in the sense that the Committee for Resolving Challenges established at the Ministry of Culture has authority to reevaluate the screenplays of cinematography projects?
2. Can Art. 50 para. (1) in Government Order #39/2005 on Cinematography be interpreted in the sense that the participants in the Selection Contest for Cinematography Projects organized by the National Center for Cinematography can file challenges against the specifics of the evaluation of cinematography projects (quality of screenplay, quality of director, quality of producer)?
3. Art. 50 in Government Order #39/2005 on Cinematography be interpreted in the sense that care the Committee for Resolving Challenges established at the Ministry of Culture has authority to reevaluate the screenplays of cinematography projects enlisted in the Contest?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #46 in Case #3464/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Suceava – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case #99/86/2020, for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
Following Constitutional Court Decision #189 of 18 March 2021, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, #466 of 4 May 2021, the stipulations of Art. 21 para. (6) in Law #165/2013 on Steps to Complete the process of Restitution, in Kind or Equivalent, of Buildings Abusively Appropriated by the Communist Regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented, then as amended by Law #219/2020 to Amend and Supplement Law #165/2013 on Steps to Complete the process of Restitution, in Kind or Equivalent, of Buildings Abusively Appropriated by the Communist Regime in Romania, have ceased to apply and can no longer be used as a legal basis for Cases on the docket of courts of law concerning compensation judgments issued prior to the entry into force of the amended Law and that had not received a final resolution on the date the Constitutional Court Decision was published in the Official Journal of Romania.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
Decision #47 in Case #736/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Bucharest – Chamber IV for Civil Matters, in Case #7079/303/2018, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
What is the interpretation and application of Art. 1 para. (3) and Art. 4 Thesis One in Law #165/2013 on Steps to Complete the process of Restitution, in Kind or Equivalent, of Buildings Abusively Appropriated by the Communist Regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented, also corroborated with the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (1) and Art. 3 item 6 in the same Law, Art. 27 para. (1) in the Law of Real Estate #18/1991, republished, as amended and supplemented, and the stipulations of Art. 1 in Additional Protocol #1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in the sense of establishing whether, in the situation where the recipient of an irrevocable court judgment that compels the local committee for the establishing of private land ownership rights to draw up the required documentation and compels the county committee for the establishing of private land ownership rights to issue the ownership title over a piece of land that has been measured as a surface and marked as a location, has sold their legal action rights arising from laws for property restitution, prior to the issuance of the ownership title and the taking possession of the asset but, after entry into force of Law #165/2013, the assignee, as a person entitled to reparatory measures, has the exclusive right to the reparatory measure stipulated in the new Law and which consists of points-based compensation as under Art. 24 para. (2)-(4) in Law #165/2013 or is entitled to the issuance of the ownership title and the taking possession of the asset.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of June, 2021.
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 May 2021, 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 #34 in Case #527/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Piteşti – Civil Chamber II for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in Case # 1805/90/2019, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
In relation to the fiscal principle of the certainty of taxation, Art. 3 letter b) in Law #571/2003 on the Tax Code and Art. 3 letter b) in Law #227/2015 on the Tax Code, which pre-date the entry into force of Law #30/2019 approving Emergency Government Order #25/2018 to amend and supplement certain regulatory acts and to approve certain fiscal and budget measures: should income derived from the transfer of virtual currency be regarded as taxable income “from other sources” as defined by Art. 78 para. (2) in Law #571/2003, and respectively Art. 114 para. (1) in Law #227/2015, thus placing the holder of the obligation under the obligation to report such income?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 24th of May 2021.
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 May 2021, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established each of the cases, considered five requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #29 in Case #411/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Cluj – Chamber IV for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in Case # 213/117/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
In the interpretation of: Art. III in Government Emergency Order #20/2016 to amend and supplement Government Emergency Order #57/2015 on the salaries for personnel paid from public funds in 2016, postponement of certain deadlines, as well as certain fiscal – budget measures, and to amend and supplement certain regulatory acts, as approved with amendments and supplements by Law #250/2016, as subsequently amended and supplemented; and also with reference to Art. II para. (1) in Law #293/2015 to approve Government Emergency Order #35/2015 amending and supplementing Government Emergency Order #83/2014 on the salaries for personnel paid from public funds in 2015, as well as other measure in the domain of public spending, as well as to amend and supplement Law #152/1998 on establishing the National Agency for Housing, as subsequently amended; is the conclusion that the 25% raise envisages the component of sectoral reference value are in the calculation formula of the monthly pre-tax pay/stipend of the law’s beneficiaries, or is this raise especially about the pre-tax base pay of the law’s beneficiaries?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 17th of May 2021.
Decision #30 in Case #497/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Maramureş – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case # 681/336/2019 for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
“How should we interpret and apply the stipulations of Art. 906 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code, as amended by Art. 1 item #68 in Law #310/2018; specifically, does the amended stipulation apply only to foreclosures begun after entry into force of Law #310/2018, or does it also apply to petitions to order compensation which were introduced after entry into force of Law #310/2018, irrespective of the date when the petition for foreclosure was filed?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 17th of May 2021.
Decision #31 in Case #536/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the High Court of Review and Justice – Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in Case # 2270/2/2018, and consequently rules as follows:
In the interpretation and application of the principle of vertical and horizontal hierarchy within one and the same domain, depending on the complexity and importance of activity undertaken, under Art. 6 letter f) in Framework-Law #153/2017 on the salaries for personnel paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, in the case of the staff employed at the National Anticorruption Department and the National Department for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism, which do not have their own pay scale, the reference to the stipulations in Entry #4 letter B under Chapter I in Appendix #V in the same regulatory act concerns the applicability of those stipulations only to the total amount of employment time and not to seniority in a position.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 17th of May 2021.
Decision #32 in Case #593/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Oradea – Chamber I for Civil Matters, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
“Following the repealing, by Order #901/2460/2019 published in Official Journal issue #574/12 July 2019, of the stipulations of para. (2) or Art. 10 in the Implementation Regulations for the stipulations of Law #125/2014, regulations that were approved under Order #2073/1623/2014, and the repealing was a result of Civil Judgment #313/17 October 2016 returned by the Court of Appeals – Chamber III for Administrative and Tax Litigations in Case # 620/33/2016, remained final under Judgment #2251/2019 returned by High Court of Review and Justice, are the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (1) in Law #125/2014 on exemptions from paying certain dues arising from pensions, to be interpreted in the meaning that there shall be no enforcement of such debts incurred after 01 October 2014 and for which debt enforcement decisions were issued as under Art. 179 din Law #263/2010?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 17th of May 2021.
Decision #33 in Case #372/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Tribunal Sibiu – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case # 2241/306/2018, for a preliminary ruling on a point of law and consequently rules as follows:
In the interpretation and application of Art. 55 para. (1) in Law #4/1953 – The Family Code, as republished with subsequent amendments and supplements, in correlation to Art. 54 para. (2) in the same Code, owing to the effects of Constitutional Court decision #349 of 19 December 2001, in Official Journal of Romania, Part I, issue #240 of 10 April 2002, it is established that the legal action to deny paternity of a child born within wedlock cannot come under a statute of limitations.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 17th of May 2021.
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 10 May 2021, 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 #28 in Case #373/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals – Chamber II for Civil Matters and consequently rules that:
The options to exclude a business partner as under Art. 222 in Law #31/1990, as republished and subsequently amended and supplemented, cannot work in conjunction with the stipulations of Art. 1.928 in in Law #287/2009 on the Civil Code.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 10th of May 2021.
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 12 April 2021, The High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established, considered requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #22 in Case #164/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber III for Civil matters and Juvenile and Family matters in Case #22239/3/2017, for a preliminary ruling and returns this Judgment:
In the interpretation of Art. 43 in Law #165/2013 on Steps to Complete the process of Restitution, in Kind or Equivalent, of Buildings Abusively Appropriated by the Communist Regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented, the capacity of a person entitled to file claims as under this Law, for land that was subject to the real estate laws as applicable on the date of enactment of Law #165/2013, is to be established based on the stipulations in those laws.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 12th of April 2021.
Judgment #23 in Case #82/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Braşov – Chamber for Civil matters in Case #1240/119/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Are the stipulations of Art. 1 para. (2) in Government Emergency Order #8/2009 on the issuance of vacation vouchers, as enacted with amendments and supplements under Law #94/2014, as amended and supplemented – the version in force in the period 1 July 2017 – 30 November 2018, to be interpreted in the meaning that in the period 1 July 2017 – 30 November 2018 public institutions and authorities covered by this piece of regulation shall issue, insofar as a budget is available for amounts with such destination, only a vacation stipend or vacation bonus, as the case may be, in the form of vouchers worth exactly 1450 RON for each employee, or can they issue a vacation stipend or vacation bonus in the form of vouchers worth less than 1450 RON for each employee if the amounts available in the budget for this destination are not sufficient for the granting of such rights in the exact amount of 1450 RON for each employee.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 12th of April 2021.
Judgment #24 in Case #88/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bacău – Chamber I for Civil matters in Case #1174/103/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Should Art. 39 para. (1) in Law #307/2006 on Defense Against Fires, as republished with amendments and supplements be interpreted in the sense that putting the personnel employed by volunteer emergency services in the bracket for special working conditions is to be done in compliance with the procedure stipulated by Government Decision #1.025/2003 on the Methodology and Criteria to Employ Persons in Special Conditions Positions, as amended and supplemented, or in compliance with Government Decision #1.294/2001 Establishing Low, Moderate and High Risk Positions and Activities Specific to the Active Military, as amended and supplemented, and Order by the Minister of the Interior #283/2002 on Employment of the ministry of the Interior Personnel in Low, Moderate and High Risk Positions?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 12th of April 2021.
Judgment #25 in Case #179/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Olt – Chamber I for Civil matters in Case #256/311/2020*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“1. In the interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 670 para. (1) and (6) in the Civil Procedure Code, considering also the RIL Judgment #8/2016 and Judgment #15/2016 returned by the Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law, does the Bailiff’s Office have defendant legal standing in the challenge of enforcement which demands reversal of the order to pay advance on the expenditures needed to continue the foreclosure procedure, with applicability of Art. 78 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code or Art. 78 para. (2) in the Civil Procedure Code concerning the ex officio introduction of other parties in the trial;
2. As a result of the answer to the first question, we request an interpretation of whether the appellate court can raise ex officio a grounds of unlawfulness of the judgment returned by the court of first instance because of the absence of the Bailiff’s Office defendant legal standing and participation, in case they were not a defendant in the appeal, but the challenge to enforcement was denied for lack of legal standing of the debtor on grounds that the standing went to the Office of the Bailiff with the consequence of applicability of Art. 480 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code, with the appellant filing a motion for retrial.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 12th of April 2021.
Judgment #26 in Case #288/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Oradea – Chamber I for Civil matters, in Case #3427/111/2016, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
How are courts to apply and interpret the stipulations of Art. 325 in the Law of National Education #1/2011, as amended and supplemented, in establishing whether they also apply in the case of serious conduct violations in scientific research and university activity committed prior to the enactment of that Law?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 12th of April 2021.
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 5 April 2021, The High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established, considered two requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments
Judgment #20 in Case #12/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Ploieşti – Chamber II for Civil matters in Case #23710/281/2016 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
“In the interpretation of the stipulations in Art. 3 and 4 para. (1) letter c) in Law #77/2016, can datio in solutum of a single building extinguish debts arising from two or several credit contracts signed by a debtor with one and the same creditor?
– Is the phrase “the credit was contracted by the consumer with the goal of purchasing, building, expanding, modernizing, refurbishing, rehabilitating a building destined as habitation space” used in Art. 4 para. (1) letter c) in Law #77/2016 intended as meaning the purpose intended by the consumer on signing the contract, which can be demonstrated using any type of evidence, or as meaning the purpose effectively written in the credit contact, known to the creditor at the time of signing the contract and whch can be demonstrated by the contract stipulation?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 5th of April 2021.
Judgment #21 in Case #63/1/2021
Sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeals Iași – Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in Case #4088/99/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law and returns the following Judgment:
In the interpretation and application of the stipulations at Art. 24 para. (4) in the Law of Administrative Litigations #554/2004, as amended via Law #138/2014: after the enforcement court returns a verdict on the creditor’s motion to set an amount of payable penalties or, if in the absence of such motion the statute of limitations is met for the foreclosure, it is no longer possible for the creditor to file motion, on the basis of this special regulation, with a request to set payable penalties for failure to service in kind the obligation to perform which involves he debtor’s personal actions.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 5th of April 2021.
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 15 March 2021, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each case, considered four requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #13 in Case #3340/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Braşov – Civil Chamber, in Case # 2337/62/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following point of law:
“An interpretation of the stipulations in Art. 28, 29, 30 and 108 in Law #223/2015 on Military State Pensions, as amended and supplemented, so as to clarify whether the additional amounts of 3%, 6% and 9% stipulated by Art. 108 in the Law are included in the amount of pension that cannot exceed 85% of the military base pay or should be added to the amount of pension that cannot exceed 85% of the military base pay.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of March 2021.
Decision #14 in Case #3360/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VII for Labor Litigations and Social Benefits in Case # 22061/3/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following point of law: an interpretation of Judgment #36 of 4 June 2018, returned by the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, issue #606 of 16 July 2018, so as to clarify whether it instates the judicial precedent as a source of law in the matter of pay for employees working in the judicial system.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of March 2021.
Decision #15 in Case #3396/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Oradea – Chamber I for Civil Matters in Case # 445/111/2020, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following points of law:
“Clarification by the High Court of Review and Justice of the way to update the calculation basis of pension for a former magistrate who on the date of retirement was receiving a stipend of 15% of their monthly pre-tax pay for having a Doctor’s degree, in application of the stipulations of Art. 85 para. (2) in Law #303/2004 corroborated with the stipulations of Art. 14 para. (1) in Law #153/2017.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of March 2021.
Decision #16 in Case #3412/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by Tribunal Olt – Chamber I for Civil Matters in Case # 416/207/2020*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following points of law:
“1. In the interpretation and application of the stipulations of Art. 670 para. (1) and (6) in the Civil Procedure Code, considering also the RIL Judgment #8/2016 and Judgment #15/2016 returned by the Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law, does the Bailiff’s Office have defendant legal standing in the challenge of enforcement which demands reversal of the order to pay advance on the expenditures needed to continue the foreclosure procedure, with applicability of Art. 78 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code or Art. 78 para. (2) in the Civil Procedure Code concerning the ex officio introduction of other parties in the trial;
2. As a result of the answer to the first question, requesting an interpretation of whether the appellate court can raise ex officio a grounds of unlawfulness of the judgment returned by the court of first instance because of the absence of the Bailiff’s Office defendant legal standing and participation, in case they were not mentioned in the appeal, with the consequence of applicability of Art. 480 para. (3) or Art. 480 para. (6) in the Civil Procedure Code, in the absence of the parties’ motion to refer the case for retrial and in the restrictive conditions stipulated by Art. 478 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code, as well as Art. 78 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of March 2021.
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 15 February 2021, 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 #9 in Case #3144/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Piteşti – Chamber I for Labor and Tax Litigations in Case #3428/90/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following point of law:
“Are the stipulations of Art. 52 para. (4) in Law #80/1995 on the Status of Military Personnel, as amended and supplemented, brought by Law #101/2019 for the amending and supplementing Law #80/1995, to be interpreted in the meaning that on the date of their enactment they shall also apply to the persons listed at Art. 36 para. (1) letters e) and h) in Law #80/1995, who joined the officers’ corps prior to Law #101/2019 ?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of February 2021.
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 8 February 2021, 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 four requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #5 in case #2970/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Court of Appeals Bacău – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in case # 2317/110/2019, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following points of law:
Should Art. 60 para. (1) in Law #223/2015 on Military State Pension, as amended and supplemented, be interpreted and applied in the meaning that the phrase “net pension” used in its text refers to the net amount of the service pension as resulting exclusively from the application of Art. 28, Art. 29 para. (1) letter a) and b), Art. 30 and Art. 108 in the same Law, or does it refer to the net amount of the service pension as resulting from the application of both the above-mentioned stipulations and, additionally, of Art. 11 para. (3) in Law #80/1995 on the Status of Military Personnel as amended and supplemented?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 8th of February 2021.
Judgment #6 in case #2984/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Court of Appeals Galaţi – Chamber II for Civil Matters, in case # 1605/233/2018, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following points of law: In the interpretation of the stipulations in Art. 460 in the Civil Procedure Code, what is the avenue of appeal and the deadline for the exercise thereof in the situation where one Judgment is returned for several primary motions at the same time, some of which are subject to appeal only while others are subject to both appeal and appeal on law?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 8th of February 2021.
Judgment #7 in case #3061/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Iaşi – Chamber for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in case # 175/89/2020, for a preliminary ruling and consequently establishes that:
In the interpretation and application of Art. 38 para. (41) in Framework Law #153/2017 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds, as amended and supplemented and of Art. 34 para. (2) in Government Emergency Order #114/2018 to put in place Measures in the Domain of Public Investment and the Tax&Budget Domain, Amending and Supplementing Certain Regulatory Acts and Prorogating Certain Deadlines, as amended and supplemented, the salary rights regulated under Art. 5, as well as Art. 8 in Appendix I – Occupational family of budget-funded positions “Education” Chapter I letter B in Framework Law #153/2017 do come under the applicability of Art. 38 para. (41) in that Law.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 8th of February 2021.
Judgment #8 in case #3118/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Iaşi – Chamber for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in case # 2424/89/2018*, for a preliminary ruling and consequently establishes that:
In the interpretation and application of Art. 39 para. (4) corroborated with Art. 39 para. (1) in Framework Law #153/2017 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds, as amended and supplemented, the category “appointed/employed personnel” that is described at Art. 39 para. (4) corroborated with Art. 39 para. (1) in Framework Law #153/2017 does include personnel that was re-hired based on Art. 36 in in Framework Law # 153/2017.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 8th of February 2021.
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 18 January 2021, 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::
Judgment #1 in case #2648/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Court of Appeals Galaţi – Chamber II for Civil Matters in case #595/196/2017, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following points of law:
„Art. 2539 para. (2) in the Civil Code can be interpreted to mean that:
1. the effect of interruption of extinctive statute of limitations occurs even if the new motion to bring legal action or for arbitration does not include the triple identity (parties, objects and cause) at a difference from the first motion?
2. if the answer to the first question is negative, then in trying the new motion to bring legal action or for arbitration can the court readdress a contentious matter that was disposed of in final version as part of the first trial?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 18th of January 2021.
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
