Salary-payment execution challenge referral deemed inadmissible, no preliminary ruling issued
Romania (RO)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice, ruling as a panel for preliminary questions of law, dismissed as inadmissible the referral from the Bihor Tribunal (Civil Section I) and therefore gave no preliminary ruling; the dismissal is binding under Art. 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The underlying case concerned a challenge to execution raised in a dispute over the enforcement of a judgment awarding salary rights to budgetary-sector personnel, under the special payment procedure set out in Art. 1(1)-(2) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 71/2009, as approved by Law No. 230/2011. The referring court asked (i) whether that statutory payment procedure constitutes forced execution and (ii) whether a substantive objection to execution under Art. 712(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Art. 628(2)-(5), may be filed within it to contest the amount executed. The High Court held the referral inadmissible, evidently because the questions did not satisfy the statutory conditions for a preliminary ruling on a genuine issue of law.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedart. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Salary-payment execution challenge referral deemed inadmissible, no preliminary ruling issued: 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The underlying case concerned a challenge to execution raised in a dispute over the enforcement of a judgment awarding salary rights to budgetary-sector personnel, under the special payment procedure set out in Art. 1(1)-(2) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 71/2009, as approved by Law No. 230/2011. The referring court asked (i) whether that statutory payment procedure constitutes forced execution and (ii) whether a substantive objection to execution under Art. 712(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Art. 628(2)-(5), may be filed within it to contest the amount executed. The High Court held the referral inadmissible, evidently because the questions did not satisfy the statutory conditions for a preliminary ruling on a genuine issue of law.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedCited in the dispositive to declare the referral binding.
Full text
ROMÂNIA
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE
Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept
Minuta deciziei nr. 88 Dosar nr. 2001/1/2017
Şedinţa din 4 decembrie 2017
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
DECIDE:
Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Bihor - Secţia I civilă, în dosarul 18353/271/2015, pentru pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile privind dezlegarea următoarelor chestiuni de drept: „Procedura de executare prevăzută de art. 1 alin. (1) şi (2) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 71/2009 privind plata unor sume prevăzute în titluri executorii având ca obiect acordarea de drepturi salariale personalului din sectorul bugetar, aprobată cu modificări prin Legea nr. 230/2011, este o procedură de executare silită? În cadrul procedurii de executare prevăzute de art. 1 alin. (1) şi (2) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 71/2009 se poate formula contestaţie la executare propriu-zisă, prevăzută de art. 712 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă, în ceea ce priveşte cuantumul sumei ce se execută, coroborat cu art. 628 alin. (2) — (5) din Codul de procedură civilă?"
Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.
Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 4 decembrie 2017.