Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_150118 AI generated

Inadmissibility of request to clarify binding decision on question of law

Case Number ICCJ_150118
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 a request for clarification of the operative part of its prior Decision No. 44/2016, thereby maintaining the original ruling as final and binding in favor of the opposing party's procedural position. The dispute concerned a procedural motion filed by a state-owned forestry company seeking to clarify the wording of a decision issued by the Court’s Panel for Resolving Questions of Law, which had been published in the Official Monitor of Romania. The court applied Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates the binding effect of decisions on questions of law, to reject the clarification request as procedurally unfounded.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of request to clarify binding decision on question of law: 44/2016, thereby maintaining the original ruling as final and binding in favor of the opposing party's procedural position. The dispute concerned a procedural motion filed by a state-owned forestry company seeking to clarify the wording of a decision issued by the Court’s Panel for Resolving Questions of Law, which had been published in the Official Monitor of Romania. The court applied Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates the binding effect of decisions on questions of law, to reject the clarification request as procedurally unfounded.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural issues article of civil procedure operative part of judgment requesting state legal opinion clarity of legal norms

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the decision and justify the procedural posture of the court regarding the clarification request.
AI generated
ICCJ_134003
Inadmissibility of request to clarify operative part of binding decision on a legal question
ICCJ_213699
Clarification of preliminary ruling inadmissible; prior binding decision stands.
ICCJ_150119
Clarification request for appellate decision on point of law held inadmissible.
Decizia nr. 35/2019
Inadmissibility of clarification request for preliminary ruling on legal unification and scope of civil procedure regularization rules for contravention complaints
ICCJ_219285
Inadmissibility of request to clarify operative part of full bench decision clarifying issues of law

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the decision and justify the procedural posture of the court regarding the clarification request.

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. 35 Dosar nr. 2551/1/2016

Şedinţa din 24 iunie 2019

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, cererea formulată de Ocolul Silvic Izvorul Someşului Mare R.A. privind lămurirea dispozitivului Deciziei nr. 44 din 21 noiembrie 2016, pronunţată de Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept, publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, nr. 1055 din 28 decembrie 2016.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 24 iunie 2019.