Bailiff's pre-ruling warrant nullity review permitted under retroactive constitutionality ruling; legal challenge timely if filed after publication.
Romania (RO)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the referral from the Bucharest Tribunal for a preliminary ruling and held that the effects of Constitutional Court Decision No. 895 of 17 December 2015 (published 4 February 2016) apply retroactively to enforcement warrants issued by a bailiff before that publication, provided the nullity based on the bailiff's lack of competence was raised in a timely enforcement challenge filed after the constitutional decision’s publication. The dispute concerned the temporal application of Article 666(2) of the Civil Procedure Code in its version prior to amendment by Emergency Ordinance No. 1/2016, specifically whether a bailiff’s warrant issued before the Constitutional Court declared that provision unconstitutional could be challenged for incompetence after the declaration. The court ruled in favor of the debtor/claimant by clarifying that the prior form of the provision, once struck down, cannot bar such challenges, ensuring uniformity under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The ruling is binding for all courts.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedBailiff's pre-ruling warrant nullity review permitted under retroactive constitutionality ruling; legal challenge timely if filed after publication: 895 of 17 December 2015 (published 4 February 2016) apply retroactively to enforcement warrants issued by a bailiff before that publication, provided the nullity based on the bailiff's lack of competence was raised in a timely enforcement challenge filed after the constitutional decision’s publication. The dispute concerned the temporal application of Article 666(2) of the Civil Procedure Code in its version prior to amendment by Emergency Ordinance No. 1/2016, specifically whether a bailiff’s warrant issued before the Constitutional Court declared that provision unconstitutional could be challenged for incompetence after the declaration. The court ruled in favor of the debtor/claimant by clarifying that the prior form of the provision, once struck down, cannot bar such challenges, ensuring uniformity under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The ruling is binding for all courts.
Keywords
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
ROMÂNIA
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE
Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept
Minuta deciziei nr. 77 Dosar nr. 1423/1/2017
Şedinţa din 6 noiembrie 2017
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
DECIDE:
Admite sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Bucureşti - Secţia a IV-a civilă în dosarul nr. 13765/299/2016 privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:
În interpretarea şi aplicarea în timp a dispoziţiilor art. 666 alin. (2) din Codul de procedură civilă, forma anterioară modificării prin Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 1/2016 pentru modificarea Legii nr. 134/2010 privind Codul de procedură civilă, precum şi a unor acte normative conexe, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 17/2017, efectele Deciziei Curţii Constituţionale nr. 895 din 17 decembrie 2015, publicate în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 84 din 4 februarie 2016, se produc şi asupra încheierilor de încuviinţare a executării silite date de executorul judecătoresc anterior publicării acestei decizii, dacă motivul de nulitate decurgând din necompetenţa executorului judecătoresc a fost invocat în cadrul contestaţiei la executare formulate în termen, după publicarea deciziei instanţei constituţionale în Monitorul Oficial al României.
Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.
Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi 6 noiembrie 2017.