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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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