Legislator Case Law & Legislation
ICCJ_133305 AI generated

Inadmissibility of multiple requests to fix definitive penalty sums in civil enforcement

Case Number ICCJ_133305
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted a referral from the Cluj Tribunal and established that, under Article 906(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, it is inadmissible to file multiple requests to fix the definitive sum owed by a debtor for penalties. This decision resolved a legal dispute arising from a civil case (No. 16573/211/2015) concerning the procedural limits on executing monetary judgments for late payment penalties, specifically whether a creditor could initiate separate proceedings to determine the final amount of such penalties. The court’s ruling, based on the interpretation of Article 906(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, set a mandatory precedent requiring that the determination of the definitive sum of penalties be addressed within a single proceeding, thereby preventing the duplication of requests for the same subject matter.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 906 alin. (4) Cod de procedură civilă, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of multiple requests to fix definitive penalty sums in civil enforcement: This decision resolved a legal dispute arising from a civil case (No. 16573/211/2015) concerning the procedural limits on executing monetary judgments for late payment penalties, specifically whether a creditor could initiate separate proceedings to determine the final amount of such penalties. The court’s ruling, based on the interpretation of Article 906(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, set a mandatory precedent requiring that the determination of the definitive sum of penalties be addressed within a single proceeding, thereby preventing the duplication of requests for the same subject matter.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement of monetary penalties Civil Procedure Code referral to separate proceedings matter in dispute enforcement of ruling procedural interpretation of judgment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 906 alin. (4) Cod de procedură civilă
The main substantive provision interpreted to establish that multiple requests to fix the definitive sum of penalties are inadmissible.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural provision cited to establish the binding nature of the decision for all courts.
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 906 alin. (4) Cod de procedură civilă

The main substantive provision interpreted to establish that multiple requests to fix the definitive sum of penalties are inadmissible.

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

Procedural provision cited to establish the binding nature of the decision for all courts.

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. 16 Dosar nr. 3778/1/2016

Şedinţa din 6 martie 2017

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Cluj - Secţia civilă în dosarul nr. 16573/211/2015 privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea dispoziţiilor art. 906 alin. (4) Cod de procedură civilă, nu este admisibilă formularea mai multor cereri de fixare a sumei definitive datorate de debitor cu titlu de penalităţi.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 6 martie 2017.