Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_128529 AI generated

Enforceability of enforcement officer's report on advanced costs as a title against the creditor and non-mandatory nature of cost recovery methods under Article 3717 CPC 1865 and Article 39(3) of Law No. 188/2000

Case Number ICCJ_128529
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

In Decision No. 15 of 2016, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, acting through its Section for Resolving Legal Questions, unanimously answered a referral from the Bucharest Court of Appeal, establishing a mandatory legal interpretation for all courts. The dispute concerned the legal nature and enforceability of the enforcement officer's report on advanced enforcement costs borne by the creditor, specifically whether such a report constitutes an enforceable title against the creditor and if the enforcement officer is strictly bound to recover these costs solely through that report. The court ruled that, under Article 3717(1), (2), and (4) of the old Code of Civil Procedure and Article 39(3) of Law No. 188/2000, the enforcement officer's report on advanced costs does constitute an enforceable title against the creditor. Furthermore, the court determined that Article 3717 does not have a mandatory character regarding the specific method of recovery, allowing the enforcement officer to recover costs either through the enforceable report or via a separate agreement with the creditor.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 39 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 188/2000, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Enforceability of enforcement officer's report on advanced costs as a title against the creditor and non-mandatory nature of cost recovery methods under Article 3717 CPC 1865 and Article 39(3) of Law No. 188/2000: a) În interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 3717 alin. (1), (2) şi (4) din Codul de procedură civilă de la 1865 şi a dispoziţiilor art. 39 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 188/2000, procesul-verbal întocmit de către executor, privind cheltuielile de executare care trebuie avansate de către creditor, constituie titlu executoriu împotriva acestuia.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement costs enforceable title cost recovery article of civil procedure advances on costs validity of debt enforcement

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 39 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 188/2000
(1), (2) şi (4) din Codul de procedură civilă de la 1865 şi a dispoziţiilor art. 39 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 188/2000, procesul-verbal întocmit de către executor, privind cheltuielile de executare care trebuie avansate de către creditor, constituie titlu executoriu împotriva acestuia.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural basis establishing the binding nature of the court's decision resolving the legal question.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 15/2016
Enforceable title status of enforcement cost minutes against creditor and dispositive nature of related norms under 1865 Civil Procedure Code and Law 188/2000
ICCJ_123239
Court costs classified as principal enforcement obligation subject to updating under Art. 628(3) CPC
Decizia nr. 1277/2024
Agency commission penalty accrual upheld; appeal against enforcement title dismissed and costs awarded.
Decizia nr. 2403/2005
Enforcement authorization validity against subrogee institution and judicial cost reduction limits under non-contentious procedure
ICCJ_81805
Debtor Wins Clarification of Enforcement Title After Payment Under Protest; Obligation Held to Be Proposal for Compensation, Not Direct Payment

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă

Procedural basis establishing the binding nature of the court's decision resolving the legal question.

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

ROMÂNIA

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept

Minuta deciziei nr. 15 Dosar nr. 562/1/2016

Şedinţa din 23 mai 2016

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Bucureşti – Secţia a IV-a civilă, în dosarul nr. 23057/300/2014, privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile şi, în consecinţa, stabileşte că:

a) În interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 3717 alin. (1), (2) şi (4) din Codul de procedură civilă de la 1865 şi a dispoziţiilor art. 39 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 188/2000, procesul-verbal întocmit de către executor, privind cheltuielile de executare care trebuie avansate de către creditor, constituie titlu executoriu împotriva acestuia.

b) Dispoziţiile art. 3717 din Codul de procedură civilă de la 1865 nu au caracter imperativ cu privire la modalitatea în care executorul îşi poate recupera cheltuielile de executare, pe baza procesului-verbal ce constituie titlu împotriva creditorului sau a convenţiei încheiate cu acesta.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 23 mai 2016.