Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_135982 AI generated

Inadmissibility of preliminary referral on interpretation of "contrary evidence" under expropriation restitution law

Case Number ICCJ_135982
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 referral for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Bucharest Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of the phrase "contrary evidence" in Article 24 of Law No. 10/2001 concerning the legal regime of real property seized abusively between 1945 and 1989. The dispute concerned the scope of evidentiary standards applicable to claims under the restitution law, where the referring court sought clarification on the legal effect of such evidence. The High Court determined that the referral was procedurally inadmissible, thereby upholding the procedural bar against such referrals under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, leaving the lower court's interpretation to be resolved without a binding preliminary ruling from the apex court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 24 din Legea nr. 10/2001, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of preliminary referral on interpretation of "contrary evidence" under expropriation restitution law: 10/2001 concerning the legal regime of real property seized abusively between 1945 and 1989. The dispute concerned the scope of evidentiary standards applicable to claims under the restitution law, where the referring court sought clarification on the legal effect of such evidence. The High Court determined that the referral was procedurally inadmissible, thereby upholding the procedural bar against such referrals under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, leaving the lower court's interpretation to be resolved without a binding preliminary ruling from the apex court.

Keywords

AI generated
restitution of property preliminary ruling procedure interpretation of a judgment scope of applicable law article of civil procedure procedural preliminary objections

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 24 din Legea nr. 10/2001
Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Secţia a IV-a civilă privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile referitoare la interpretarea sintagmei „probe contrare” din cuprinsul art. 24 din Legea nr.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory nature of the court's decision dismissing the referral.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 62/2017
Inadmissible preliminary ruling on "contrary evidence" in Law No. 10/2001; clear meaning and settled case law preclude referral.
ICCJ_201038
Preliminary ruling referral inadmissible for lacking genuine interpretive difficulty; prior land restitution decisions stand.
ICCJ_156003
Preliminary property-restitution referral dismissed as inadmissible; deadlines left uninterpreted
ICCJ_140169
Preliminary ruling referral inadmissible; courts cannot substitute judgment for restitution order under Law 165/2013.
ICCJ_86957
Preliminary ruling referral on restitution law interplay rejected as inadmissible.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory nature of the court's decision dismissing the referral.

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. 62 Dosar nr. 1070/1/2017

Şedinţa de la 18 septembrie 2017

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Secţia a IV-a civilă privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile referitoare la interpretarea sintagmei „probe contrare” din cuprinsul art. 24 din Legea nr. 10/2001 privind regimul juridic al unor imobile preluate în mod abuziv în perioada 6 martie 1945 - 22 decembrie 1989, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi 18 septembrie 2017.