Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_131553 AI generated

Contravention challenge must be substantiated within 15-day filing deadline; remaining referral inadmissible

Case Number ICCJ_131553
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the referral for a preliminary ruling on a question of law and held that a challenge against an administrative contravention report must be substantiated (including the grounds) within the 15-day deadline for filing such a challenge, which runs from the date of delivery or communication of the report, and that the challenge is subject to the regularisation procedure for civil claims under Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Code; the rest of the referral was dismissed as inadmissible. The dispute arose from a case referred by the Sibiu Tribunal concerning the interpretation of Article 31(1) of Government Ordinance No. 2/2001 on the legal regime of contraventions, as approved and amended by Law No. 180/2002—specifically whether the complaint must be both filed and reasoned within the 15-day period. The decisive legal basis was the interplay between Article 31(1) of the ordinance and Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Code, requiring timely substantiation of the legal and factual grounds, with the ruling declared binding under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 31 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 2/2001, art. 200 din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Contravention challenge must be substantiated within 15-day filing deadline; remaining referral inadmissible: The dispute arose from a case referred by the Sibiu Tribunal concerning the interpretation of Article 31(1) of Government Ordinance No. 2/2001 on the legal regime of contraventions, as approved and amended by Law No. 180/2002—specifically whether the complaint must be both filed and reasoned within the 15-day period. The decisive legal basis was the interplay between Article 31(1) of the ordinance and Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Code, requiring timely substantiation of the legal and factual grounds, with the ruling declared binding under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Keywords

AI generated
time of filing deadline for communication administrative complaint preliminary ruling procedure Civil Procedure Code late submission preclusion

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 31 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 2/2001
Main ground for the preliminary ruling on the interpretation and application of the provision regarding the time limit for filing a complaint against the contravention report.
art. 200 din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive, establishing that the complaint is subject to the regularization procedure.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive, declaring the ruling mandatory.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 44/2016
Contravention complaint must be substantively motivated within 15-day deadline; preliminary question partially admitted and rest dismissed
ICCJ_211751
Applicability of civil amendment deadlines to contravenial complaints after the 15-day filing period
ICCJ_192242
Admissibility of extraordinary review challenge concerning whether contravention deadline limits post-service amendment of complaint to allege new illegality grounds
Decizia nr. 49/2022
Admissibility of preliminary reference on modification of contravenction complaint after expiration of 15-day statutory deadline
Decizia nr. 197/2020
Peremption of administrative challenge and forfeiture of appeal against declaration of peremption due to breach of mandatory five-day deadline

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 31 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 2/2001

Main ground for the preliminary ruling on the interpretation and application of the provision regarding the time limit for filing a complaint against the contravention report.

art. 200 din Codul de procedură civilă

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive, establishing that the complaint is subject to the regularization procedure.

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

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive, declaring the ruling mandatory.

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. 44 Dosar nr. 2551/1/2016

Şedinţa de la 21 noiembrie 2016

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile, formulată de Tribunalul Sibiu – Secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, prin încheierea din 21 aprilie 2016, pronunţată în dosarul nr. nr. 11338/306/2014 şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea dispoziţiilor art. 31 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 2/2001 privind regimul juridic al contravenţiilor, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 180/2002, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, plângerea împotriva procesului-verbal de constatare a contravenţiei trebuie şi motivată în termenul de 15 zile de la data înmânării sau comunicării procesului-verbal de contravenţie, fiind supusă procedurii de regularizare a cererii de chemare în judecata prevăzută de art. 200 din Codul de procedură civilă.

Respinge în rest sesizarea, ca inadmisibilă.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 21 noiembrie 2016.