Press release – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters in its session of 22 June 2020
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 22 June 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 seven requests for preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #45 in case #951/1/2020
Sustains the request from the Tribunal Gorj – Chamber I Civil Matters, in case # 14725/318/2019, for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:
The interpretation and application of Art. 182 and Art. 183 para. (1) and (3) in the Civil Procedure Code amended by Law #310/2018 on amending and supplementing Law #134/2010 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as amending and supplementing other pieces of regulation, procedural documents transmitted by fax or e-mail on the last day of the procedural deadline which is counted in terms of days, after the time of day when work in court stops, are deemed to have been filed inside the deadline.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 22nd of June.
Judgment #46 in case #793/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Court of Appeals Cluj – Chamber III for administrative and tax litigations, in case # 6948/63/2018, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
“Is the extra pay for labor conditions stipulated by Art. 1 in Appendix VIII Chap. I letter B in Law # 153/2017 subject to the staged implementation stipulated by Art. 38 in the same law or not.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 22nd of June.
Judgment #47 in case #837/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from the Court of Appeals Alba Iulia – Chamber I Civil matters, in case # 2142/107/2018, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law: “Is it possible to interpret Art. 14 in the Rules for extra pay approved under Order #547/2010 in the sense that in establishing the amount of extra pay for labor conditions of the health system personnel for the years 2015-2016, the sum will be established by applying a percentile to the base pay of that month or by taking as a baseline the pay and extras applicable since December 2009.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 22nd of June.
Judgment #48 in case #905/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Tribunal Bistriţa-Năsăud - Chamber II Civil Matters and Administrative and Tax Litigations, in case # 1752/112/2019, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
Can Art. 509 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code be interpreted as also applicable to the case of a motion for revision in the matter of civil procedural law in the hypothesis of judgments that have become final in breach of the principle of precedence of European Union law.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 22nd of June.
Judgment #49 in case #3163/1/2019
Denies as inadmissible the request from Tribunal Bihor – Chamber I Civil Matters, in case # 346/271/2019, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
Does previous ownership of a “sessio,” as a legal concept specific to civil law in Transylvania including after 6 March 1945, confer to that holder the capacity of person entitled to reinstatement as an owner, also considering the hypothesis at Art. 22 para. (1) in the Law of the Real Estate Fund #18/1991, as republished, amended and supplemented: “they previously owned farmland.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 22nd of June.
Judgment #50 in case #3199/1/2019
Sustains the request from the Tribunal Timiş – Chamber I Civil Matters, in case # 24956/325/2019, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying a point of law.
The interpretation and application of Art. 34 para. (2) in Law # 217/2003 on prevention and combating domestic violence, as republished, amended and supplemented, is that:
In the situation where the person against whom the restraining order was issued is not involved in a criminal case, to order that order rescinded it is not necessary to have the Probation Service develop an assessment of the reoffending risk as under Art. 34 para. (2) letter c) in Law # 217/2003. In such case, the court shall perform its own assessment of whether the person against whom the restraining order was issued constitutes a genuine risk for the domestic violence victim or their family.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 22nd of June.
Judgment #51 in case #787/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Constanța – Chamber I Civil Matters, in case # 2567/118/2016, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:
1) Does the interpretation of Art. 34 in Law # 255/2010 on expropriation for cause of public utility, needed in order to achieve goals of national, county and local interest, as amended and supplemented, mean that the stipulations in this Law are to be corroborated accordingly by the stipulations of Art. 35 in Law # 33/1994 on expropriation for cause of public utility, as republished.
2) In case the answer to the first question is affirmative, do expropriations performed on the basis of Law #255/2010 also come under the deadlines stipulated by Art. 35 in Law # 33/1994?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 22nd of June 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