Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_157822 AI generated

Interpretation of the imperativeness of the regularization deadline in construction violation proceedings under Article 28 of Law No. 50/1991

Case Number ICCJ_157822
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, in its Full Panel for Resolving Legal Questions, dismissed the referral as inadmissible, thereby leaving the lower court to resolve the matter without a binding preliminary ruling on the legal issue. The dispute concerned an administrative and fiscal challenge regarding building authorization, specifically whether the deadline set in an infraction report for a party to regularize a construction or face demolition is a mandatory (imperative) period or merely a recommendation when the authority has not yet obtained a demolition order. The case centered on the interpretation of Article 28(1)-(3) of Law No. 50/1991 regarding the authorization of construction works, with the court determining that the specific referral from the Court of Appeal did not meet the admissibility requirements for a preliminary resolution of a question of law under the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Interpretation of the imperativeness of the regularization deadline in construction violation proceedings under Article 28 of Law No. 50/1991: The dispute concerned an administrative and fiscal challenge regarding building authorization, specifically whether the deadline set in an infraction report for a party to regularize a construction or face demolition is a mandatory (imperative) period or merely a recommendation when the authority has not yet obtained a demolition order. The case centered on the interpretation of Article 28(1)-(3) of Law No. 50/1991 regarding the authorization of construction works, with the court determining that the specific referral from the Court of Appeal did not meet the admissibility requirements for a preliminary resolution of a question of law under the Civil Procedure Code.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Code preliminary ruling procedure demolition order interpretation of the law fiscal law procedural deadline

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the court's decision.
AI generated
ICCJ_180916
Deadline to regularize unauthorized construction is recommendatory; permit refusal based solely on expiry invalid without demolition judgment.
ICCJ_175890
Nature of deadline in construction violation report where legalization procedure was not completed and no demolition order obtained
ICCJ_134779
Admissibility of preliminary referral on conflicting interpretation of building regularization document requirements under Law 50/1991
Decizia nr. 35/2020
Admissibility of preliminary ruling on whether the statutory deadline for construction legalization is mandatory or recommendatory
ICCJ_158624
Unauthorized-construction penalty limitation referral dismissed as inadmissible

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 court's decision.

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. 133/1/2020

Şedinţa din 27 aprilie 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge ca inadmisibilă sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia – Secția de contencios administrativ și fiscal, în dosarul nr. 6701/107/2017, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarea chestiune de drept:

„Dacă, în ipoteza în care partea nu a demarat sau nu a finalizat, în termenul acordat, procedura de intrare în legalitate, iar autoritatea nu a obținut o hotărâre de demolare a construcției, prevederile art. 28 alin. (1), (2) și (3) din Legea nr. 50/1991 privind autorizarea executării lucrărilor de construcții, republicată, cu modificările și completările ulterioare, trebuie interpretate în sensul că termenul stabilit în procesul-verbal de constatare a contravenției este unul imperativ sau de recomandare ?”

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

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 27 aprilie 2020.