Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_156422 AI generated

Admissibility of presidential order procedure for suspending performance guarantee enforcement in public procurement

Case Number ICCJ_156422
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, in its complete bench for resolving questions of law, ruled that the procedure of a presidential order is not admissible for the suspension of enforcement of a performance guarantee in public procurement matters. The dispute arose from a referral by a Court of Appeal regarding the procedural mechanism for staying the enforcement of a performance guarantee attached to a public procurement contract. Applying Article 997 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 53(2) of Law No. 101/2016, the court established that the specific legal framework governing public procurement remedies excludes the use of presidential orders for such suspensions, thereby directing that other procedural remedies under the Civil Procedure Code must be utilized instead. This decision is binding on lower courts in accordance with Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 53 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 101/2016, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 997 din Codul de procedură civilă; Admissibility of presidential order procedure for suspending performance guarantee enforcement in public procurement: The dispute arose from a referral by a Court of Appeal regarding the procedural mechanism for staying the enforcement of a performance guarantee attached to a public procurement contract. Applying Article 997 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 53(2) of Law No. 101/2016, the court established that the specific legal framework governing public procurement remedies excludes the use of presidential orders for such suspensions, thereby directing that other procedural remedies under the Civil Procedure Code must be utilized instead. This decision is binding on lower courts in accordance with Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Keywords

AI generated
public procurement procedure order for enforcement procedural guarantee Civil Procedure Code framework decision matter in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 53 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 101/2016
Specifies the applicable remedies in public procurement matters, used to determine the inadmissibility of the presidential order procedure.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Establishes the binding nature of the court's decision resolving the question of law.
art. 997 din Codul de procedură civilă
Defines the procedural framework and scope for the preliminary ruling on the question of law.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 27/2020
Inadmissibility of presidential order for suspending public procurement performance guarantee under lex specialis
Decizia nr. 3868/2018
Presidential order admissibility for suspending civil contracts under the umbrella of a public utility's administrative resolution
Decizia nr. 2529/2007
Admissibility of presidential order to suspend execution of administrative act under specific administrative litigation procedure
Decizia nr. 240/2025
Admissibility of presidential order suspension in administrative litigation: exclusive application of Law 554/2004 over general civil procedure
Decizia nr. 2559/2015
Admissibility of presidential order for suspending administrative acts under Law 554/2004 and the non-applicability of civil procedure emergency measures

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Establishes the binding nature of the court's decision resolving the question of law.

art. 997 din Codul de procedură civilă

Defines the procedural framework and scope for the preliminary ruling on the question of law.

art. 53 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 101/2016

Specifies the applicable remedies in public procurement matters, used to determine the inadmissibility of the presidential order procedure.

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. 27 Dosar nr. 1980/1/2019

Ședința din 2 martie 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Brașov - Secția civilă, în dosarul nr. 504/119/2019, în vederea pronunțării unei hotărâri prealabile.

În aplicarea dispozițiilor art. 997 din Codul de procedură civilă şi art. 53 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 101/2016 privind remediile și căile de atac în materie de atribuire a contractelor de achiziție publică, a contractelor sectoriale și a contractelor de concesiune de lucrări și concesiune de servicii, precum și pentru organizarea și funcționarea Consiliului National de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, cu modificările și completările ulterioare, stabilește că procedura ordonanței președințiale nu este admisibilă în materia suspendării executării unei garanții de bună execuție aferente unui contract de achiziție publică.

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi, 2 martie 2020.