Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_135394 AI generated

Audit authority’s power to assess substantive propriety of public fund allocation and administrative acts under the National Audit Office Law

Case Number ICCJ_135394
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Court of Appeal of Constanta, thereby leaving the referring court's position unchanged without resolving the substantive question. The dispute concerned a legal query regarding whether the National Audit Office, when conducting a financial audit, possesses the authority to assess the opportunity or propriety of contract executions and administrative acts by audited entities from the perspective of public fund allocation, and whether it can determine the existence of breaches of legality and regularity causing prejudice based on such assessments. The admissibility of the referral was the decisive issue, with the court applying Article 521 paragraph (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the petition, rather than interpreting the specific provisions of Law no. 94/1992 concerning the organization and functioning of the National Audit Office.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 33 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 94/1992, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Audit authority’s power to assess substantive propriety of public fund allocation and administrative acts under the National Audit Office Law: The dispute concerned a legal query regarding whether the National Audit Office, when conducting a financial audit, possesses the authority to assess the opportunity or propriety of contract executions and administrative acts by audited entities from the perspective of public fund allocation, and whether it can determine the existence of breaches of legality and regularity causing prejudice based on such assessments. The admissibility of the referral was the decisive issue, with the court applying Article 521 paragraph (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the petition, rather than interpreting the specific provisions of Law no. 94/1992 concerning the organization and functioning of the National Audit Office.

Keywords

AI generated
power of assessment administrative authority procedural acts financial audit financial assessment preliminary ruling procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 33 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 94/1992
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited to indicate that the decision has the mandatory force of law, serving as the procedural basis for the final disposition.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 6299/2013
Limits of audit authority ordering recovery of public funds: entity’s exclusive obligation to determine prejudice and enforce debt
Decizia nr. 734/2020
Competence of appellate courts to review Audit Office decisions and inadmissibility of challenging normative acts via exception of illegality
Decizia nr. 1746/2015
Legality of administrative audit measures for public investment overruns, reporting failures, and undervalued historic asset disposal
Decizia nr. 4842/2014
Legality of Audit Court regulations governing administrative decision-making and contestation procedures under Organic Law delegation
Decizia nr. 58/2017
Challenge to Court of Accounts audit findings on public fund allocation: referral declared inadmissible

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited to indicate that the decision has the mandatory force of law, serving as the procedural basis for the final disposition.

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. 58 Dosar nr. 1152/1/2017

Şedinţa de la 11 septembrie 2017

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Constanța – Secția a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ și fiscal, în dosarul nr. 1578/118/2016, în vederea pronunțării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

„În interpretarea și aplicarea dispozițiilor art. 2 lit. c), art. 26 lit. d) şi art. 33 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 94/1992 privind organizarea și funcționarea Curții de Conturi, republicată, cu modificările și completările ulterioare, în cadrul unui audit financiar Curtea de Conturi se poate raporta la oportunitatea încheierii unui contract de către entitatea auditată, din perspectiva alocării de fonduri publice, sau la oportunitatea adoptării unui act administrativ de către entitatea auditată și poate constata din această perspectivă existența unor abateri de la legalitate și regularitate, care au determinat producerea unor prejudicii?”.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 11 septembrie 2017.