High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 7 December 2020, 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 #75 in case #2568/1/2020
Sustains the request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeals Iaşi – Chamber for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in case #1879/89/2019 and returns the following Judgment:
In the interpretation and application of Art. 1 para. (3) in Government Emergency Order #3/2019 on a payment schedule for outstanding salary rights for certain categories of personnel in the judicial system, approved under Law #224/2019, corroborated with Art. 1.531 and Art. 1.535 in the Civil Code, Art. 166 in Law #53/2003 – the Labor Code, as republished with amendments and supplements and Art. 1-3 in Government Order #13/2011 on the legal interest rate and the statutory late payment interest rate for monetary obligations, as well as for regulating financial and taxation measures in the banking domain, approved under Law #43/2012 as supplemented, together with the legal interest rate stipulated by Government Emergency Order #3/2019, is it possible to grant late payment interest rates for outstanding salary rights that come under the scope of the same law for the period prior to the issuance of the orders/decisions to grant salary rights and respectively the difference between the amount of late payment interest rate and that of legal interest rate, for the period subsequent to the issuance of said orders or decisions?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of December 2020.
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 16 November 2020, 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 #74 in case #2196/1/2020
Sustains the request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Argeş – Civil Chamber, panel specialized in administrative and tax litigations, in case #2897/109/2018, in the matter of the following point of law:
In the interpretation and application of Art. 26 para. (3) first thesis in Law #176/2010 on Integrity in the Exercise of Public Office and Dignities, for the amending and supplementing of Law #144/2007 on Establishing, Organizing and the Operation of the National Integrity Agency, as well as for the amending and supplementing of other regulatory acts, as amended and supplemented, Art. 2.517 and subsequent in Law #287/2009 of the Civil Code, as republished and subsequently amended, the Court rules that:
The action on annulment brought against a Prefect’s order to legally terminate the office of a locally-elected official following the latter’s having been found incompatible or in a conflict of interests in a final assessment report issued by the National Integrity Agency cannot bring grounds of unlawfulness in terms of the statute of limitations for administrative liability, or for the right of the National Integrity Agency to exercise its legal prerogatives to assess interests and incompatibilities for individuals stipulated by law, or cessation of the right to move for disciplinary action.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 16th of November 2020.
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 9 November 2020, 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 preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #70 in case #2275/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Bucharest Tribunal – Chamber IV Civil Matters, in case # 1682/300/2018, for a preliminary ruling on the following points of law:
- If the Record Ledger of Legal Acts Certified by a Solicitor was, under the law, a public ledger prior to 29 May 2018 when, under the Decision of the Council of the United Bar Associations of Romania #325 of 17 February 2018, the National Ledger of Legal Acts Certified by a Solicitor became operational as stipulated at Art. 3 para. (3) in Law # 51/1995 for the Organization and Exercise of the Solicitors’ Profession, as republished, amended and supplemented;
- Should Art. 3 para. (1) lit. c) in Law # 51/1995, which stipulates certification of the date on a document by a solicitor, be interpreted in the meaning that the solicitor has the power to put a certified date on a document under private signature.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 9th of November 2020.
Judgment #71 in case #2383/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Constanţa – Chamber II Civil Matters and Administrative and Tax Litigations, in case # 21458/212/2015, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:
Does the interpretation of Art. 483 para. (2) in the Civil Procedure Code referring to the phrase “in motions (…) concerning (…) activity in harbors” only cover the activities regulated under Government Order #42/1997 on transport by sea and inland navigable waterways, as republished, amended and supplemented, or does it include any other economic activity taking place in harbors, even without a connection to civil navigation.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 9th of November 2020.
Judgment #72 in case #2372/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Bucharest Tribunal – Chamber V Civil Matters, in case # 22307/299/2019 for a preliminary ruling and consequently establishes that:
Art. 22 para. (2) in Law # 203/2018 on steps to streamline payment of fines for administrative violations, as amended, is not applicable to fines for administrative violations enforced under decisions by the Competition Council based on Art. 55 para. (1) in Competition Law #21/1996, as republished, amended and supplemented.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 9th of November 2020.
Judgment #73 in case #1403/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Bucharest Tribunal – Chamber II Administrative and Tax Litigations, in case # 35860/299/2018, for a preliminary ruling on the following points of law:
“Should Art. 7 lit. c) dash two in Government Order #21/1992 be interpreted to mean that the scope of the notion of providing services that do not impact the life, health or security of consumers or their economic interests includes charging penalty interest for failure to comply with contract obligations, when the contract between the economic operator and the consumer is about providing financial services (crediting);
Should the interpretation of Art. 3 para. (1) in Law # 313/1879 lead us to understand that this applies to a credit contract signed between a financial institution and an individual?
Should the interpretation and application of Art. 15 para. (4) corroborated with Art. 14 and Art. 10-13 in Government Order #21/1992 be a basis for an administrative court order to recalculate and return penalty interest established under contract for situations of failure to comply with contract obligations in the situation where the service provided by the economic operator is distinct from the charging of penalty interest?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 9th of November 2020.
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 2 November 2020, 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 #67 in case #1907/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Court of Appeals Piteşti – Chamber II for Administrative and Tax Litigations, in case #4362/90/2017, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following points of law:
“In the interpretation and application of Art. 12 para. (3) in Law #393/2004 on the Status of Locally Elected Officials, as amended and supplemented, is the Prefect under an obligation to see to what extent a decision to exclude a councilman from the party is final in the system of avenues of appeals stipulated by the articles of association of the political party or organization they are a member of, and to require explanatory documents for the exclusion procedure?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 2nd of November 2020.
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 October 2020, 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 six requests for preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #61 in case #1908/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VII for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in case # 15798/3/2019, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
What is the interpretation of Art. 425 in Law # 223/2007 on the Status of Professional Civil Aviation Navigating Personnel in Romania, as amended and supplemented, in the sense of establishing the meaning of the phrase “average annual inflation rate, a definitive indicator, known on the 1st of January every year when the update is calculated and communicated by the National Institute for Statistics,” namely is this the indicator that corresponds to the year previous to the one the update is calculated in, or is it the last known indicator on the 1st of January of the year when the update is calculated, as communicated by the National Institute for Statistics.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #62 in case #2035/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Bacău – Chamber I Civil Matters, in case # 4563/99/2018, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
Should Art. 55 para. (4) letter e) and Art. 29615 letter e) in Law # 571/2003 of the Tax Code, as amended and supplemented, and also Art. 76 para. (4) letter f) and Art. 142 letter e) in Law # 227/2015 of the Tax Code, as amended and supplemented, be interpreted in the sense that the phrase “the price of medication” also includes the hypothesis of payment of the personal contribution, namely co-payment of the purchase of medication as approved by the credit manager for the specialist ancillary staff and the auxiliary personnel of courts of law and prosecutor’s offices, in service or retired, based on Art. 67 in Law # 567/2004 on the status of specialist ancillary staff of courts of law and prosecutor’s offices attached to them and of the personnel working for the National Institute for Forensic Examinations, as amended and supplemented, and in the conditions of Government Decision #762/2010 on the conditions for providing free-of-charge medical assistance, medication and prosthetics for certain categories of personnel in the judicial system, as amended and supplemented.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #63 in case #2136/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Braşov – Civil Chamber, in case # 3817/62/2018, for a preliminary ruling.
The interpretation and application of Art. 28 para. (1) in Law # 223/2015 on state military pension, as amended and supplemented, is that:
The calculation basis used to establish the amount of state military pension is the average of pre-tax monthly basic pay/salary received over 6 consecutive months, in the last 5 years of activity as a member of the military /police/special-status public servant, as updated by bringing to date every component element of the pre-tax monthly basic pay/salary received for the base position, established under salary laws applicable on the date pension rights are calculated, without a distinction being made in terms of whether this updated pre-tax amount is higher or lower than that of the pre-tax monthly basic pay/salary received in the period selected by the future retiree, which can also mean a lowering of the selected calculation basis insofar as on the date the pension rights are calculated the individual comes under the stipulations of Art. 38 para. (6) in Framework Law #153/2017 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds, as amended and supplemented.
In interpreting Art. 60 in the same law, as it was amended by Emergency Government Order #59/2017 on amending and supplementing certain regulatory acts in the matter of service pensions, the court finds that:
The net state military pension, calculated as per Art. 3 letter m) in Law # 223/2015, after deduction of income tax as under applicable law, is capped at the level of the average net monthly military pay/salary corresponding to the pre-tax monthly military pay/salary contained in the pension calculation basis, as already updated as per Art. 28 para. (1), on the date of calculation of the pension rights.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #64 in case #2236/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Cluj – Chamber IV for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in case # 2316/100/2019, for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
In interpreting Art. 39 para. (6) corroborated with cu Art. 38 para. (1), para. (3) letter d), para. (41) and para. (8) in Framework Law #153/2017 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds, as amended and supplemented, establishing the base salary for teaching staff in the national education system who were hired before entry into force of Framework Law #153/2017 is to be done, for the duration of the temporary application of this regulatory act, by using the seniority grade of 4 years stipulated in the Appendix to Government Decision #38/2017 for application of Art. 34 para. (3) in Government Emergency Order #57/2015 on Salaries for Personnel Paid from Public Funds in the year 2016 postponing certain deadlines, as well as certain tax and budget measures.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #65 in case #1433/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VIII for administrative and tax litigations, in case # 31418/3/2018 and consequently rules that:
In interpreting and applying the stipulations of Art. 8 and Art. 10 para. (3) in Government Emergency Order #90/2017 related to Art.13 para. (5) in Government Emergency Order nr.103/2013 and Art. IV para. (1) and (6) in Law # 79/2018, it is allowed to cumulate the increase by 75% of the calculation basis granted for activity performed by special-status public servants in the system of the penitentiary administration on days of weekly repose, legal holidays and other days declared as non-working days as under applicable regulations, with rights pertaining to supplemental work performed by the same public servants as overtime past normal working hours, only for hours effectively worked that exceed the normal working hours as under Art. 112 in the Labor Code.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
Judgment #66 in case #2135/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Tribunal Harghita – Civil Chamber, in case # 1232/234/2014, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
What is the legal nature of the “plot plan,” is it an administrative/legal document of a nature to produce legal effects or is it a mere technical document that does not produce legal effects, as related to the stipulations of Art. 27 para. (1), (2) and (41) din Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991, as republished, amended and supplemented?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 26 October 2020.
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 October 2020, 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 #60 in case #1667/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber V Civil Matters for a preliminary ruling for the clarification on the following points of law:
“1. In the interpretation of Art. 1596 letter a) and Art. 2327 in the Civil Code, Art. 5 item 15 and Art. 161 item 5 in Law #85/2014, does the notion of ‘priority creditor’ also include the government-based creditor that is entitled to the order of priorities stipulated by Art. 161 item 5 in Law #85/2014?;
2. In the interpretation of Art. 1593 para. (1) and Art. 1597 in the Civil Code, does the effect of subrogation by a private creditor also include their acquiring the payment priority status to which a government-based creditor is entitled as under Art. 161 item 5 in Law #85/2014?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 5th of October 2020.
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 28 September 2020, 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 preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #56 in case #1434/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VII for Labor Disputes and Social Insurance, in case # 971/87/2018, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
What is the interpretation of the phrase “on request from the interested party” in Art. 142 para. (2) in the Law of Social Dialogue #62/2011, as republished, amended and supplemented; does it refer only to the signatory parties of the collective bargaining contract or can any employee distinctly request a finding of nullity.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 28 September 2020.
Judgment #57 in case #1518/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber V Civil Matters, in case # 7007/94/2017, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
In interpreting Art. 158 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code, in the situation where the domicile is selected as the head office of a private legal practice is it necessary to indicate the individual responsible for accepting procedural documents served at that address?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 28 September 2020.
Judgment #58 in case #1519/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Iaşi – Chamber for Labor Disputes and Social Insurance, in case # 2069/89/2019, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
In the interpretation and application of Art. 198 and Art. 200 in the Law of Social Dialogue #62/2011, as republished, amended and supplemented, corroborated with Art. 35 in the Civil Procedure Code, is an employer’s legal action to have a strike declared unlawful, specifically a warning strike, inadmissible if filed after the strike started?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 28 September 2020.
Judgment #59 in case #1626/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Craiova – Chamber I Civil matters in case # 6280/63/2019 for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
Pay rights owed for medical staff when performing on-call duty outside the legal working week and working hours for the base position, based on a part-time labor contract, are included in the category of the elements of the salary system which, under the law, serve to calculate the monthly pre-tax salary, so that based on Art. 34 para. (2) in Government Emergency Order #114/2018, as of 1 January 2019 their amount shall stay no higher than the level of the December 2018 pay, as under the legal stipulations applicable for January 2018 based on Art. 38 para. (3) letter h) in Framework Law #153/2017, insofar as the staff continue to fill the same position and perform their work in the same conditions.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, 28 September 2020.
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 21 September 2020, 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 preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Judgment #55 in case #1215/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Oradea – Chamber II Civil Matters and Administrative and Tax Litigations for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
The interpretation of Art. 195 para. (3) in Law # 31/1990, as republished, the 10-day deadline starts on the date when the call for a general assembly meeting sent as registered mail has reached its addressees, unless the company’s articles of incorporation or a special legal stipulation provides for a different avenue of communication.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 21st of September 2020.
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 14 September 2020, 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 preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #53 in case #1283/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Braşov – Civil Chamber, in case # 7128/197/2018, on the following point of law:
“1. What is the calculation start of the time frame for the statute of limitations for the material right to legal action for tort liability in the case of illicit acts with a continuous character?
2. Do allegedly illicit acts have a continuous character when they concern conditions of detention during the service of a prison sentence?”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 14th of September 2020.
Judgment #54 in case #1228/1/2020
Sustains the request from the High Court of Review and Justice – Chamber I Civil Matters, in case # 21840/3/2016, for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
The interpretation and application of Art. XVIII para. (2) second thesis in Law # 2/2013 on certain measures to alleviate the workload in courts of law and to make preparations for the implementation of Law #134/2010 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended and supplemented, is that appeal on law is not possible in the case of judgments returned (…) in motions requesting compensation for losses caused by judicial errors, as well as judgments returned in motions formulated on the basis of Art. 538 in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 14th of September 2020.
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 20 July 2020, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established, considered the matter of a request for preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:
Judgment #52 in case #1094/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Piteşti – Chamber I Civil Matters, in case # 1187/109/2019, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
Given the transitory stipulations of Art. 39 para. (5) in Framework Law #153/2017 on the salaries of personnel paid from public funds, as amended and supplemented, the stipulations of Art. 14 para. (3) in Framework Law #153/2017 also apply to teaching staff who have obtained their equivalence for teacher certification 1st degree by obtaining the scientific title of Doctor before the enactment of Framework Law #153/2017?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 20th of July 2020.
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
