Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Sentința nr. 1846/2009 AI generated

A.N.A.F. enforcement title challenge rejected as inadmissible; fiscal debt execution contest affirmed with costs

Case Number Sentința nr. 1846/2009
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Court Costs Borne by appellant
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (Criminal Section) rejected as inadmissible the appellant's challenge to execution, affirming the dismissal of the motion, and ordered the appellant to pay 100 lei in judicial costs to the state; the decision is final. The appellant had contested an enforcement title issued by A.N.A.F. for unpaid fiscal obligations of 400 lei, arguing the summons and title were null for lacking signature and stamp, and sought annulment of the forced execution based on Article 461(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that the grounds raised by the appellant—concerning the legality of administrative enforcement acts—do not fall within the exhaustive list of Article 461 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs challenges to execution in criminal matters; the proper remedy would lie under Articles 172–173 of Government Ordinance No. 92/2003, before the competent court in a separate procedure, not as a criminal execution challenge.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 461 lit. c) C. proc. pen, art. 461 C. proc. pen, art.192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen; A.N.A.F. enforcement title challenge rejected as inadmissible; fiscal debt execution contest affirmed with costs: The appellant had contested an enforcement title issued by A.N.A.F. for unpaid fiscal obligations of 400 lei, arguing the summons and title were null for lacking signature and stamp, and sought annulment of the forced execution based on Article 461(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that the grounds raised by the appellant—concerning the legality of administrative enforcement acts—do not fall within the exhaustive list of Article 461 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs challenges to execution in criminal matters; the proper remedy would lie under Articles 172–173 of Government Ordinance No. 92/2003, before the competent court in a separate procedure, not as a criminal execution challenge.

Keywords

AI generated
debt enforcement challenge of administrative decisions grounds for cassation order to pay grounds of challenge state obligation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 461 lit. c) C. proc. pen
a formulat contestaţie la executare întemeindu-se pe dispoziţiile art. 461 lit. c) C. proc. pen.
art. 461 C. proc. pen
Ground for rejecting the appeal as inadmissible because the stated reasons did not fall within the enumerated cases.
art.192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen
Basis for ordering the petitioner to pay court costs to the state.
AI generated
Sentința nr. 2179/2009
Challenge to Court-Cost Enforcement Title Dismissed as Inadmissible; Costs Reaffirmed
Decizia nr. 4529/2010
Challenge to fiscal enforcement titles upheld as civil execution objection; jurisdiction declined to first-instance court
Decizia nr. 1034/2007
Challenge to fiscal execution title reclassified as execution dispute; appeal upheld, case remanded to district court.
Decizia nr. 5206/2005
Debtor's challenge to enforcement authorization rejected; enforcement upheld as legality of title not reviewable at admission stage.
Decizia nr. 2694/2012
Execution challenge against criminal judicial expenses inadmissible; appeals rejected, lower ruling upheld.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 461 C. proc. pen.

Ground for rejecting the appeal as inadmissible because the stated reasons did not fall within the enumerated cases.

Art. 192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen.

Basis for ordering the petitioner to pay court costs to the state.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Asupra contestaţiei la executare de faţă;

În baza lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

La data de 10 septembrie 2007 A.N.A.F. a emis titlul executoriu, întrucât a expirat scadenţa termenului de plată al obligaţiilor fiscale înscrise în documentul prin care s-a stabilit şi suma de plată de 400 lei, de către numitul B.N.

Împotriva acestui titlu executoriu, petentul B.N. a formulat contestaţie la executare întemeindu-se pe dispoziţiile art. 461 lit. c) C. proc. pen.

S-a motivat că somaţia cât şi titlul executoriu emise de A.N.A.F. sunt nule de drept deoarece nu sunt autentificate prin semnătură şi ştampilă.

S-a solicitat anularea executării silite începută în baza titlului executoriu contestându-se numai legalitatea actelor de executare silită.

În consecinţă, cererea contestatorului are temei juridic dispoziţiile art. 172-173 din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 92/2003, împotriva prezentului înscris putându-se introduce contestaţie la instanţa judecătorească competentă în termen de 15 zile de la comunicare sau luarea la cunoştinţă.

Motivele pentru care se poate formula contestaţie la executare, sunt cele prevăzute de art. 461 C. proc. pen., iar cele susţinute de petiţionar nu se regăsesc în acest text legal, fapt pentru care Înalta Curte va respinge, ca inadmisibilă, cererea formulată de contestatorul B.N.

Văzând şi dispoziţiile art.192 alin. (2) C. proc. pen;

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

H O T Ă R Ă Ş T E

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, contestaţia la executare formulată de contestatorul B.N.

Obligă petiţionarul la plata sumei de 100 lei cu titlul de cheltuieli judiciare către stat.

Definitivă.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, azi 6 noiembrie 2009.