Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_158407 AI generated

Admissibility of uniform interpretation question on commencement of limitation period under Ordonance No. 70/2011 and transitional provisions of Ordonance No. 44/2014

Case Number ICCJ_158407
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 the reference submitted by the Court of Appeal of Constanța, leaving the lower court's procedural posture unchanged regarding the admissibility of the question. The dispute centered on the determination of the starting point for the limitation period in a civil case, specifically whether the period began upon the entry into force of Ordonance No. 70/2011 or under the transitional provisions of Ordonance No. 44/2014. The decisive legal basis involved the interplay between Article 30(2) of Emergency Ordinance No. 70/2011, Article I(4) and (5) of Emergency Ordinance No. 44/2014, and Articles 2,517 and 2,528 of the Civil Code, with the Court finding the reference failed to meet the criteria for a uniform application of law question under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Admissibility of uniform interpretation question on commencement of limitation period under Ordonance No. 70/2011 and transitional provisions of Ordonance No. 44/2014: Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Constanţa referitoare la determinarea momentului de începere a cursului prescripţiei extinctive, în aplicarea prevederilor art. 30 alin. (2) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 70/2011 şi art. I alin. (4) şi (5) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 44/2014 raportat la art. 2.517 şi 2.528 din Codul civil.

Keywords

AI generated
commencement of limitation period uniform interpretation transitional provisions article of civil procedure procedural limitations interpretation of the law
AI generated
Decizia nr. 2339/2014
Transitional application of Civil Code limitation interruption rules to pre-existing statutes
ICCJ_150131
Inadmissibility of preliminary question on statute of limitations for unauthorized construction under Law No. 50/1991
Decizia nr. 58/2021
Limitation-period query inadmissible as referral under old procedural law postdates Code
ICCJ_230690
Admissibility of suspension of limitation period defense in appeal proceedings under Romanian Civil Code Art. 2.535
Decizia nr. 61/2018
Start of limitation period for damages following annulment of administrative act: communication of act versus final judgment

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. 39 Dosar nr. 727/1/2020

Şedinţa din 18 mai 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Constanţa referitoare la determinarea momentului de începere a cursului prescripţiei extinctive, în aplicarea prevederilor art. 30 alin. (2) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 70/2011 şi art. I alin. (4) şi (5) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 44/2014 raportat la art. 2.517 şi 2.528 din Codul civil.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 18 mai 2020.