Inadmissibility of preliminary question on statute of limitations for unauthorized construction under Law No. 50/1991
Romania (RO)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court of Cassation and Justice, sitting as the Panel for Resolving Questions of Law, dismissed as inadmissible the request filed by the Gorj County Court for a preliminary ruling. The underlying dispute concerned an administrative-constitutional challenge to the interpretation of Romania's Construction Law (No. 50/1991), specifically whether the statute of limitations for imposing fines on the unauthorized execution of a completed structural building commences from the date the competent authority discovers the infraction, as argued under Articles 26, 31, and 37(5). The court rejected the admissibility of the reference question without deciding on the merits, leaving the lower instance to resolve the matter based on existing procedural standards. The decisive legal basis for the ruling was the inapplicability of the preliminary question resolution procedure to the specific factual and procedural context presented by the referring court.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedart. 37 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 50/1991, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of preliminary question on statute of limitations for unauthorized construction under Law No. 50/1991: The underlying dispute concerned an administrative-constitutional challenge to the interpretation of Romania's Construction Law (No. 50/1991), specifically whether the statute of limitations for imposing fines on the unauthorized execution of a completed structural building commences from the date the competent authority discovers the infraction, as argued under Articles 26, 31, and 37(5). The court rejected the admissibility of the reference question without deciding on the merits, leaving the lower instance to resolve the matter based on existing procedural standards. The decisive legal basis for the ruling was the inapplicability of the preliminary question resolution procedure to the specific factual and procedural context presented by the referring court.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedProcedural rule establishing the mandatory nature of the court's decision on the preliminary question of law.
Full text
ROMÂNIA
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE
Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept
Minuta deciziei nr. 36 Dosar nr. 946/1/2019
Şedinţa din 28 iunie 2019
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
DECIDE:
Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Gorj – Secția contencios administrativ și fiscal, în dosarul nr. 2335/318/2018, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:
,,Prevederile art. 26 alin. (1) lit. a), raportate la dispoziţiile art. 31, coroborate cu cele ale art. 37 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 50/1991 privind autorizarea executării lucrărilor de construcţii, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, se pot interpreta în sensul că pentru contravenţiile constând în executarea totală, fără autorizaţie de construire, a unei construcţii ce cuprinde toate elementele structurale necesare pentru a fi considerată terminată, termenul de prescripţie a dreptului de a constata contravenţiile şi de a aplica amenzile prevăzute la art. 26 din acelaşi act normativ curge de la data la care autoritatea competentă a constatat comiterea faptei?”
Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.
Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 28 iunie 2019.