Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_157821 AI generated

Interpretation of the ten-day payment deadline start date and "ongoing cases" scope in insolvency proceedings

Case Number ICCJ_157821
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 rejected the referral for a preliminary ruling filed by the Cluj Court of Appeal, leaving the lower court's procedural posture unchanged. The dispute concerned the interpretation of insolvency law provisions regarding the commencement of a ten-day deadline for paying debts and the definition of pending litigation for procedural limitations, specifically whether deadlines run from the deposit of the request into the debtor's insolvency file or from its communication to the judicial administrator, and whether "ongoing cases" refer to the main insolvency file or an associated bankruptcy conversion request. The decisive legal basis was Article 75(3)-(4) of Law No. 85/2014 (as amended by Emergency Government Ordinance No. 88/2018) and Article IX(1)-(2) of the same Ordinance, interpreted in conjunction with Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure governing the admissibility of referrals to the Complete Bench for resolving legal issues.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Interpretation of the ten-day payment deadline start date and "ongoing cases" scope in insolvency proceedings: The dispute concerned the interpretation of insolvency law provisions regarding the commencement of a ten-day deadline for paying debts and the definition of pending litigation for procedural limitations, specifically whether deadlines run from the deposit of the request into the debtor's insolvency file or from its communication to the judicial administrator, and whether "ongoing cases" refer to the main insolvency file or an associated bankruptcy conversion request. The decisive legal basis was Article 75(3)-(4) of Law No. 85/2014 (as amended by Emergency Government Ordinance No. 88/2018) and Article IX(1)-(2) of the same Ordinance, interpreted in conjunction with Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure governing the admissibility of referrals to the Complete Bench for resolving legal issues.

Keywords

AI generated
insolvency deadline for payment preliminary ruling procedure deadline for communication pending proceedings emergency government ordinance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the obligatory nature of the decision issued by the Complete Bench for resolving legal issues.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 34/2020
Inadmissible preliminary ruling request on start of 10-day deadline for judicial administrator’s review of payment claims and scope of “pending proceedings” in bankruptcy transitional provisions
Decizia nr. 4/2024
Interpretation of the one-year deadline for installment payment of public sector salary debts under OUG No. 114/2018
ICCJ_82869
Insolvency revision admissibility: no contradiction between statutory five-day deadline for debt table objections and judge-sindic's indicative deadlines
ICCJ_192239
Salary-debt payment deadline referral rejected as inadmissible; no substantive ruling issued
Decizia nr. 1915/2025
Extra-contractual debt: limitation period commences at invoice issuance in absence of agreed payment term

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to establish the obligatory nature of the decision issued by the Complete Bench for resolving legal issues.

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.34 Dosar nr. 193/1/2020

Şedinţa din 27 aprilie 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Cluj - Secţia a II-a Civilă, în dosarul nr. 3665/100/2017/a4, privind pronunțarea unei hotărâri prealabile cu referire la următoarele probleme de drept:

„ dacă începutul termenului de 10 zile de la data depunerii cererii de plată prevăzut de art. 75 alin. (3) şi (4) din Legea nr. Legea nr. 85/2014, astfel cum a fost modificat prin art. I pct. 8 şi art. IX din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 88/2018, se interpretează în sensul că acest termen curge de la data depunerii cererii la dosarul de insolvenţă al debitorului aflat în procedură sau de la data comunicării acestei cereri administratorului judiciar?

Dacă sintagma „procese începute” şi „procese aflate pe rol” din conţinutul prevederilor alin. (1) şi (2) ale art. IX din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 88/2018 se referă la dosarul de insolvenţă al debitorului supus procedurii sau la dosarul asociat acestuia, care are ca obiect cererea de trecere la faliment formulată de un creditor”.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 27 aprilie 2020.