Press releases/information

High Court of Cassation and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

 

In its session of 21 October 2024, 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 ten requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:

Judgement no. 50 in Case no.  552/1/2024

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Buzău – Second Civil, Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in case no. 779/200/2022 and, as a result, establishes that:

In the interpretation and application of Article 628 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court of enforcement shall determine interest, penalties or other amounts that are due by operation of law to the creditor, in accordance with Article 1.535 of the Civil Code or other special legal provisions, also in the event that the creditor claims  late payment penalties stipulated in the contract.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

 

Judgement no. 51 in Case no.  1607/1/2024

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Braşov – Civil Chamber, in case no. 1734/62/2023, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:

In the interpretation and application of Article 58, c) of Law no. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the calculation of the full contribution period required to be completed by insured persons with a medium disability also includes the assimilated periods provided for in Art. 49 para. (1) lit. b) and c) of Law no. 263/2010 or the additional period of seniority in employment, granted for periods completed in group I or group II of employment, on the basis of the legislation prior to April 1, 2001, referred to in Art. 17 para. (1) of Law no. 263/2010.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

Judgement no. 52 in Case no.  1628/1/2024

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – Second Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in case no. 9389/3/2024, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:

For staff who have reached the level of the pay grid in 2022, the bonus for harmful working conditions set out in the point a) of the sole article of Annex no. 1 of the Framework Regulation on the establishment of workplaces, categories of staff, the concrete size of the bonus for working conditions, as well as the conditions for granting it for the occupational family of budgetary functions “Administration” of the central public administration, approved by Government Decision no. 917/2017, is subject to the ceiling regulated by Article II of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 115/2023 on some fiscal-budgetary measures in the field of public spending, for fiscal consolidation, combating tax evasion, amending and supplementing certain normative acts, as well as for the extension of certain terms, with subsequent amendments and additions, to the extent that the staff occupies the same position and performs its work under the same conditions.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

Judgement no. 53 in Case no. 1630/1/2024

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Alba Iulia – First Civil Chamber, in case no. 698/107/2023, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:

In the interpretation and application of Article 82 para. (3) in relation to the provisions of Articles 86 and 104 para. (1) of Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and public prosecutors, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the period during which a police officer, with a degree in legal sciences, has performed specialized legal duties may be taken into account for the purposes of granting the service pension established in Article 82 para. (3), if the analysis of the fulfilment of these duties proves that the requirements of Article 44 para. (1) of Law no. 92/1992 on Judicial Organization, republished, with subsequent amendments.

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request concerning the clarification of the second question of law, respectively „Is there any impediment arising from the provisions of Article 51 para. (3) of Law no. 303/2004 and Article 192 para. (1) of Law no. 263/2010, that the periods during which a person who has held specialized legal functions (police officer) and which have been valorised by the award of a State military pension, may subsequently obtain the award of a service pension (magistrate), under the conditions of Article 82 para. (3) of Law no. 303/2004?”

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

Judgement no. 54 in Case no. 1641/1/2024

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – The VIIIth Labor and social security litigation Chamber, în case no. 4955/3/2024, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

The conditions for awarding the salary increase provided by the Order of the Minister of Internal Affairs no. 35/2019 on the conditions for establishing the salary increase for additional work performed by staff with special status, as well as special activities of an operational or unforeseen nature, by reference to the provisions of Articles 5, 6 of this normative act, in the situation where the additional work actually performed exceeds the budget funds allocated for this purpose.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

Judgement no. 55 in Case no. 1644/1/2024

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Bucharest – The VIIIth Labor and social security litigation Chamber, in cases nos. 3496/3/2024 and 3623/3/2024, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the point of law concerning on the granting of bonuses for 2021, in accordance with Article 125 para. (1) b) of the Collective Employment Agreement no. 81/175/768 of November 9, 2018 and the granting of holiday vouchers for 2021, in accordance with Art. (2) e) of the same agreement.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

Judgement no. 56 in Case no. 1857/1/2024

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Giurgiu – Civil Chamber, in case no. 321/122/2024 and by the Court of Appeal of Cluj – Third Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in case no. 2619/117/2023, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the point of law concerning recalculation of the allowances for paid rest leave by including in the base of the calculation of the food allowance received by the applicants as civil servants.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

Judgement no. 57 in Case no. 68/1/2024

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Oradea – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, in Case no. 2.705/111/2022, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:

In the interpretation of the provisions of Article 266 para. (41) of Law no. 207/2015 on the Code of Fiscal Procedure, in conjunction with the provisions of Art. 23 para. (3) and (4) of the Code of Fiscal Procedure, in the particular hypothesis of the incidence of the provisions of Article 181 of Law no. 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings, in the form in force prior to the amendment made by Law no. 216/2022, in the event of the cancellation of tax liabilities owed by the individual debtor in the course of business activities on a self-employed basis, following the debtor’s removal from the register in which it was registered, the incidence of Article 181 of Law no. 85/2014 prevents the individual from taking over the liabilities.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

Judgement no. 58 in Case no. 1317/1/2024

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Neamţ – First Civil and Administrative Litigation Chamber, in case no. 5367/291/2023, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently, establishes that:

In the interpretation of Art. 1.108 para. (2), Art. 43 para. (3), Art. 41 para. (3) and art. 144 of the Civil Code, the expressed acceptance of the inheritance by a minor who lacks the legal capacity to exercise his or her rights is an act of disposition and requires the consent of the tutelary court.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

Judgement no. 59 in Case no. 1569/1/2024

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Ialomiţa – Civil Chamber, in case no. 325/98/2024, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

The provisions of Art. (2) of Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations, approved with amendments and additions by Law no. 246/2005, as subsequently amended and supplemented, according to which the subsidiary is governed by its own board of directors, shall be interpreted as meaning that the board of directors of the subsidiary must be distinct (in terms of its composition) from the board of directors of the foundation which set up the respective subsidiary?

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 21 October 2024.

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

High Court of Cassation and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 21 October 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in the Case, considered one appeal in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:

 

Decision No. 19 in case No. 1598/1/2024

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Pitești and, accordingly, establishes that:

In the uniform interpretation and application of Article 21 para. (6) in relation to Art. (1) and (3) of Law no. 165/2013 regarding the completion of the process of restitution, in kind or by equivalent, of real estate wrongfully taken over during the communist regime in Romania, as amended and supplemented, the notarial grid applicable, in the event that the court establishes both the existence of the right to reparation measures and the number of points to be awarded to the entitled person, is the in effect in the year prior to the delivery of the judgment.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Article 517 paragraph (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 21 October 2024.

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

High Court of Cassation and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

 

In its session of 7 October 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, lawfully established in the Case, considered one request for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:

 

Decision 49 in Case 1521/1/2024

 Sustains the request from the Court of Appeal of Suceava – Chamber for Criminal Matters and for Juveniles Matters, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“Whether in interpreting the provisions of Art. 198 para. (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 19 para. (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 1370 of the Civil Code, a civil action brought by a defendant – a participant in the commission of the offense of brawl under Article 198 para. (1) of the Criminal Code against another defendant – a participant in the same offense of brawl referred to in Article 198 para. (1) of the Criminal Code, relating to civil claims arising from injuries sustained as a result of the brawl can be admissible” and establishes that:

In the interpretation and application of Article 198 para. (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 19 para. (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 1370 of the Civil Code, the civil action brought by a defendant – a participant involved in the perpetration of the offense of brawl under Article 198 para. (1) of the Criminal Code against another defendant – a participant in the same act of brawl referred to in Article 198 para. (1) of the Criminal Code can be admissible.

Mandatory as of the date of publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I under Art 477 para. (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, 16 September 2024.

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

 

 High Court of Cassation and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

 

In its session of 7 October 2024, 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:

 

Judgement no. 47 in Case no. 1192/1/2024

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the requests brought by the Tribunal of Suceava – First Civil Chamber, in affaires no. 2450/203/2022 and no. 1005/203/2022, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

„Whether, in the interpretation and application of Article 906 para. (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure:

  • the criteria taken into account by the court in determining the late payment penalties ordered by the judgment delivered under the provisions of Article 906 para. (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure may be analysed and taken into account for the reduction of the penalty when challenging the enforcement of any of the judgments issued on the basis of Article 906 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, regardless of whether or not the debtor has fulfilled the obligation to execute and even if they have not proved the existence of any good reasons justifying the delay in execution;
  • the late payment penalties established by any of the judgments delivered under the provisions of Article 906 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure may also be reduced when the debtor partially performs the obligation to execute and proves the existence of serious grounds justifying the partial delay in performance;
  • the late payment penalties established by any of the judgments delivered pursuant to Article 906 para. (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure may still be enforced where the creditor himself holds an enforceable title by which he has been personally authorized to discharge, at the debtor’s expense, the obligation to perform the obligation imposed on the debtor.”.

 

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 7 October 2024.

Judgement no. 48 in Case no. 1393/1/2024

 The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Bacău – First Civil Chamber, in affaires no. 5613/270/2019/a1*, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“Whether the court has ruled on the claim for the granting of court fees, but omitted to rule on a category of fees requested and proven by documents submitted in the file (for example, the fees owed to the court expert), the party whose claim was omitted from the judgment may remedy this omission by filing a request for supplementing the claim, under the conditions of Article 444 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or by rectification of the judgment provided for in Article 442 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure?”.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 7 October 2024.

 

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

High Court of Cassation and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 7 October 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each Case, considered two appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:

 

Decision No. 17 in case No. 1300/1/2024

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the General Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 587 para. (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it establishes that the court that has jurisdiction to rule on the complaint filed against the judgment rendered by a district court concerning parole is the hierarchical superior court of the district court that has rendered the contested judgment, within the district of which the place of detention was located at the time the parole request was filed.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 474 para. (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 7 October 2024.

 

 

Decision No. 18 in case No. 1340/1/2024

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Suceava and, accordingly, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 103 para. (1) d) of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 regarding the traffic on public roads, republished, with subsequent amendments and additions, in the form in force until 29.06.2024 (the date on which the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 84/2024 for the amendment and completion of some normative acts in order to increase road safety entered into force), the term “bodily injury” refers to traumatic injuries or damage to a person’s health, the seriousness of which is assessed by at least one day of medical care.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Article 517 paragraph (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 7 October 2024

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

 

High Court of Cassation and Justice

 PRESS RELEASE

  

In its session of 16 September 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Criminal Matters, lawfully established in each Case, considered two requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgment:

 

Decision 45 in Case 1095/1/2024

 Sustains the request from the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

“Whether, with regard to the crime of misappropriation of public bids under Article 246 of the Criminal Code, the substantive element consisting in the modality of “removal” is also present when, through bribery, the perpetrator of the offense, i.e. the active subject of the crime, withdraws from a public bid” and establishes that:

The substantive element of the crime of misappropriation of public bids under Article 246 of the Criminal Code, consisting in the modality of “removal”, is not present even when the perpetrator of the act, the active subject of the act, withdraws from a public bidding procedure as a result of bribery.

Mandatory as of the date of publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I under Art 477 para. (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, 16 September 2024.

 

Decision 46 in Case 1318/1/2024

 Sustains the request from the Court of Appeal of Braşov – Criminal Chamber in case no. 7387/197/2021 for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

„Whether the crime under Article 24(b) of Law no. 50/1991, consisting in proceeding with the execution of construction work after the competent supervisory bodies have ordered it to be stopped, also covers the same prohibited conduct which is criminalized even if the work is not halted but the order to stop it has been issued by the prosecuting authorities?” and establishes that:

The crime under Article 24, b) of Law no. 50/1991, consisting in proceeding with the execution of works after the order to stop them has been issued by the competent supervisory bodies according to law, does not cover the situation where the works continue after the order to stop them has been issued by the prosecution authorities.

Mandatory as of the date of publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I under Art 477 para. (3) in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, 16 September 2024.

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

 

High Court of Cassation and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 16 September 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice- Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered six requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:

 

Judgement no. 39 in Case no. 989/1/2024

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – Labour and Social Security Litigation Chamber and, in interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 341 para. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code and in relation to the provisions of Articles 74 and 75 of the Civil Code, establishes that:

The evidence consisting of a recording of a telephone conversation between an employee and another employee or a representative of the employer, submitted in a legal dispute against the employer, is admissible, even if the recording was made without the consent and/or prior information of the other party, provided that a fair balance is struck between the right to present evidence, on the one hand, and the right to privacy, on the other, in the sense that the granting of the evidence must be indispensable for the exercise of the right to present evidence and must be strictly proportionate to that purpose.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.

Judgement no. 40 in Case no. 1038/1/2024

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – VIII Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber in case no. 6533/3/2022, and, as a result, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art.39 para. (1) and (4) in relation to Article 6 lit. a), b) and c) of the Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of personnel paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, when determining the maximum level of remuneration in payment for similar positions, the salary rights recognized to other employees by definitive court rulings that have interpreted and applied generally applicable legal rules, cannot be taken into account, if that interpretation has been subsequently invalidated by a binding decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice delivered in a clarification of certain points of law.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.

 

Judgement no. 41 in Case no. 1504/1/2024

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Covasna – Civil Chamber in case no. 582/119/2024, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art. 106 para. (1), Art. 144 and Art. 146 para. (3) of the Labor Code, Art. 220 para. (1) and (5) of the Law No. 198/2023 on Pre-University Education, as subsequently amended and supplemented, respectively Art. 267 para. (1) and art. 270 of the National Education Law no. 1/2011, as amended and supplemented, in relation to Art. 5 para. (1) of the Methodological Norms on taking vacation leave for teaching, management, guidance and control and research personnel in public education, approved by Order of the Minister of Education no. 4.050/2021, establishes that:

In-service teachers who also carry out hourly-paid work by cumulating individual employment contracts at the same pre-university educational establishment do not benefit from additional paid vacation leave for the time effectively worked on an hourly-paid basis, or from compensation corresponding to the vacation leave days owed and not taken at the time of cessation of the individual fixed-term employment contract.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.

 

Judgement no. 42 in Case no. 1526/1/2024

The Panel denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal of Suceava – First Civil Chamber, in affaire no. 4380/86/2023, for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the following point of law:

Whether the provisions of Article 211 para. (4) of Law no. 303/2022 regarding the statute of judges and public prosecutors, in its original form, according to which ‘persons who have at least 25 years of seniority solely in the duties listed in para. (1) may retire at the age of 60 and receive a service pension, even if they have another occupation at the time of retirement”, applies to former judges/prosecutors who have such seniority, without any distinction between the functions listed in Art. 211 para. (1) (“at least 25 years’ seniority in the positions of judge, prosecutor, judge of the Constitutional Court, assistant magistrate at the High Court of Cassation and Justice and at the Constitutional Court, specialized legal staff assimilated to judges and prosecutors, financial judge, financial prosecutor or accounts counsellor of the jurisdictional section of the Court of Auditors, lawyer, legal specialized staff in the former state arbitrations, court clerk holding a law degree, legal adviser or jurisconsult”), in accordance with the principle ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.

 

Judgement no.43 in Case no. 1505/1/2024

 The Panel sustains the request brought by the Tribunal of Vâlcea – First Civil Chamber in case no. 414/90/2024 and by the Tribunal of Bucureşti – The VIIIth Labor and social security litigation Chamber, in affaires no. 5224/3/2024, no. 7582/3/2024 and no. 4204/3/2024, for a preliminary ruling, and consequently establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 38 para. (3) of the Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of personnel paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, the gross amount of the base salaries, respectively of the employment allowances within the occupational family of budgetary functions “Justice”, established by reference to the sectoral reference value of 605.225 RON, shall be increased, as of January 1, 2018, by 25% compared to the level granted for December 2017, to the extent that the personnel concerned performs their work under the same conditions and the employers have not already granted this increase.

Dismisses the remaining related complaints as inadmissible.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.

Judgement no.44 in Case no. 475/1/2024

The Panel sustains the request brought by the Court of Appeal of Constanţa – Administrative and Tax Litigation Chamber, by its Judgment of January 8, 2024, rendered in Case no. 1.654/88/2022, for a preliminary ruling and, consequently, establishes that:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 60 para. (5), Art. 1381 and Art. 154 para. (1), r) of Law no. 227/2015 on the Tax Code (form in force as of January 1, 2021), employers whose registered business activity is “Manufacture of metal structures and component parts of metal structures” – CAEN Code 2511, shall apply the tax facilities only for those activities directly related to activities in the construction sector, defined as such in Section F – “Construction” of Order no. 337/2007.

In interpreting and applying the provisions of Article 13 para. (6) of the Code of Fiscal Procedure, the previous findings of a territorial labor inspectorate, requiring an employer to pay the gross minimum wage guaranteed for the construction sector, do not constitute grounds for subsequently requiring the tax authority to recognize the right to the application of tax facilities, governed by Article 60 para. (5), Article 1381 and Article 154 para. (1), r) of Law no. 227/2015 on the Tax Code.

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

Returned in public hearing, today, 16 September 2024.

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

High Court of Cassation and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

In its session of 16 September 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each Case, considered four appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:

 

Decision No. 13 in case No. 1087/1/2024

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Braşov and, accordingly, establishes that:

In interpreting and uniformly applying the provisions of Art. 150 of Law no. 53/2003 – Labor Code, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, Art. 7 of Government Decision no. 250/1992 on vacation leave and other leaves of employees of the public administration, autonomous regions having a special specific nature and budgetary units, republished, as subsequently amended, Art. 22 of Government Ordinance no. 6/2007 on some measures regulating the salary and other rights of civil servants until the entry into force of the law on the unitary salary system and other rights of civil servants, as well as the salary increases to be granted to civil servants in 2007, approved with amendments by Law no. 232/2007, with subsequent amendments, art. 23 of Government Ordinance no. 10/2008 on the level of base salaries and other rights of budgetary staff paid according to Government Emergency Ordinance no. 24/2000 on the system for establishing the base salaries for contractual staff in the budgetary sector and staff paid according to Annexes no. II and III to Law no. 154/1998 on the system for establishing basic salaries in the budgetary sector and allowances for persons occupying positions of public dignity, as well as some measures regulating the salary and other rights of contractual staff paid by special laws, approved with amendments by Law no. 177/2008, as amended and supplemented:

The meal allowance covered by Article 18 of the Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, as subsequently amended and supplemented, is not included in the base for calculating the vacation leave allowance due to contractual staff paid from public funds and civil servants.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Article 517 paragraph (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 16 September 2024.

 

Decision No. 14 in case No. 1174/1/2024

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Constanţa and, accordingly, establishes that:

In interpreting and uniformly applying the provisions of Art. 57 para. (3), corroborated with the provisions of Art. 57 para. (2) of Law no. 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings, the prerogative of the majority creditor to appoint the insolvency administrator or liquidator may be exercised no later than the date of the first session of the creditors’ meeting, having as its main agenda the confirmation/appointment of the insolvency administrator/liquidator.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Article 517 paragraph (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 16 September 2024.

 

Decision No. 15 in case No. 1130/1/2024

 Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the General Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

In interpreting and uniformly applying the provisions of Art.152 alin. (1) lit. a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to Art. 139 para. (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the crime of embezzlement under Art. 295 para. (1) with the applicability of Article 308 para. (1) of the Criminal Code cannot be included in the category of crimes against property.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 474 para. (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 16 September 2024.

Decision No. 16 in case No. 1094/1/2024

 Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by The Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Braşov and establishes that:

  1. The procedural acts issued before June 25, 2018 (the date of publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, No 518 of June 25, 2018 of the Constitutional Court Decision No 297/2018) have an interrupting effect on the statute of limitations of criminal liability, regardless of the amount of the damage, without the need to assess in concrete terms a systemic risk of impunity, in all cases concerning crimes against the financial interests of the European Union and corruption offenses only if the overall more favourable criminal law, in accordance with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 265 of May 6, 2014 (published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No 372 of May 20, 2014) is the Criminal Code or special legislation containing criminal provisions in the form in force between February 1, 2014 and June 24, 2018.
  2. Procedural acts for which there is a legal obligation to be delivered to the suspect or defendant after May 30, 2022 (date of publication of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 71/2022) interrupt the course of the statute of limitations of criminal liability only with respect to acts committed starting from May 30, 2022 or with respect to acts committed before that date only if the overall more favorable criminal law, in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court no. 265 of May 6, 2014 (published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, No 372 of May 20, 2014) is the Criminal Code or special legislation containing criminal provisions in the form effective as of May 30, 2022.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Art. 474 para. (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 16 September 2024.

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

Informare de presă

 

Vineri, 19 iulie 2024, la sediul Înaltei Curți de Casație și Justiție, în baza prevederilor Legii nr. 367/2022 privind dialogul social, a fost semnat Contractul colectiv de muncă pentru grefierii și alte categorii de personal care ocupă funcții de specialitate în cadrul instanței, precum și acordul între partenerii sociali.

Contractul colectiv de muncă va fi transmis către Inspectoratului Teritorial de Muncă al Municipiului București și va intra în vigoare cu valabilitate de 1 an de la data validării și înregistrării acestuia.

 

Biroul de informare și relații publice

High Court of Cassation and Justice

PRESS RELEASE

 

In its session of 17 June 2024, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each Case, considered three appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:

 

Decision No. 10 in case No. 905/1/2024

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the General Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and, accordingly, establishes that:

In interpreting and uniformly applying the provisions of Article 616 para. (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it establishes that entities covered by Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations, approved with amendments and additions by Law No. 246/2005, as amended and subsequently supplemented, may include in their statutes, as a goal and/or objective, the organization of activities specific to institutionalized arbitration only if they are authorized by the legislator to exercise institutionalized arbitration.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Article 517 paragraph (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 17 June 2024.

 

Decision No. 11 in case No. 970/1/2024

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Governing Board of the Court of Appeal of Cluj.

In interpreting and uniformly applying the provisions of Art. I, paragraphs. (1)-(3) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No. 226/2020 on some fiscal-budgetary measures and for amending and supplementing some normative acts and extending some deadlines, with the subsequent amendments, Art. I, paragraphs. (1) and (2) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No. 130/2021 on some fiscal-budgetary measures, the postponement of some deadlines, and for the amendment and supplementation of some normative acts, with subsequent amendments and additions, and Art. I of the Emergency Government Ordinance no. 168/2022 on some fiscal-budgetary measures, the postponement of some deadlines, as well as for the amendment and completion of some normative acts, with subsequent amendments and additions, resulting in the capping of salaries and allowances provided for by the Framework Law No. 153/2017 on the salaries of staff paid out of public funds, with subsequent amendments and additions, establishes that:

These legal provisions are also applicable to public servants and contractual staff of the own apparatus of county councils, town halls and local councils, of institutions and public services of local and county interest subordinated to them, even if the provisions of Article 38 of the Framework Law No. 153/2017 do not change the system for determining the basic salaries of the occupational family „Administration” contained in Article 11 of the same framework law.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Article 517 paragraph (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 17 June 2024.

 

Decision No. 12 in case No. 975/1/2024

Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Governing Board of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and, accordingly, establishes that:

In interpreting and uniformly applying the provisions of Article 6 para. (1) of the Emergency Government Ordinance No. 94/2000 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 94/2000 on the restitution of immovable property belonging to religious cults in Romania, republished, with subsequent amendments and additions, only the applicants for restitution whose immovable property, covered by the Emergency Ordinance, was legally alienated after December 22, 1989 may opt for compensation measures in equivalent under Article 5 para. (5) of the above-mentioned normative act.

Mandatory, according to the provisions of Article 517 paragraph (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Delivered in public session today, 17 June 2024.

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