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