Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_158626 AI generated

Preliminary referral on concession termination by county council president dismissed as inadmissible.

Case Number ICCJ_158626
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 referral from the Constanța Court of Appeal seeking a preliminary ruling, thereby declining to answer whether, under Articles 91(4)(a) and 123(1) of Local Public Administration Law No. 215/2001 and Article 8 of Concessions Law No. 219/1998, termination of a concession contract with a county council requires a council decision or may be decided solely by the council president, thus leaving the lower court's pending question unresolved. The dispute involved the validity of terminating a concession agreement, with the issue being whether the principle of symmetry of forms mandates council approval. The dismissal was based on procedural inadmissibility under the preliminary ruling mechanism, with the decision declared binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code; no substantive ruling on the legal interpretation was issued.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 8 din Legea nr. 219/1998; Preliminary referral on concession termination by county council president dismissed as inadmissible: 215/2001 and Article 8 of Concessions Law No. 219/1998, termination of a concession contract with a county council requires a council decision or may be decided solely by the council president, thus leaving the lower court's pending question unresolved. The dispute involved the validity of terminating a concession agreement, with the issue being whether the principle of symmetry of forms mandates council approval. The dismissal was based on procedural inadmissibility under the preliminary ruling mechanism, with the decision declared binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code; no substantive ruling on the legal interpretation was issued.

Keywords

AI generated
Civil Procedure Code preliminary ruling procedure preliminary decision dismissal or termination of contract concession grounds for cassation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 8 din Legea nr. 219/1998
215/2001, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, şi art. 8 din Legea nr.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 41/2020
Admissibility of preliminary ruling on whether rescinding a public concession contract requires a county council resolution under the principle of symmetry of legal acts.
ICCJ_136792
Preliminary ruling referral on mayor’s mandate termination inadmissible for want of statutory admissibility conditions
Decizia nr. 6268/2019
Constitutionality of unilateral concession contract termination by county president versus council resolution requirement
Decizia nr. 65/2021
Preliminary ruling referral dismissed as inadmissible absent genuine interpretive question on appellate court composition.
ICCJ_147647
Preliminary ruling referral on lapse during mandatory stay inadmissible; question left unresolved.

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. 41 Dosar nr. 397/1/2020

Şedinţa din 25 mai 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge ca inadmisibilă sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Constanţa – Secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în dosarul nr. 1658/88/2016*, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarea chestiune de drept:

„În interpretarea dispozițiilor art. 91 alin. (4) lit. a) şi art. 123 alin. (1) din Legea administraţiei publice locale nr. 215/2001, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, şi art. 8 din Legea nr. 219/1998 privind regimul concesiunilor, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, pentru rezilierea convențională şi/sau judiciară a unui contract de concesiune încheiat cu un consiliu județean este necesară adoptarea unei decizii de către consiliul județean sau rezilierea poate fi decisă doar de către președintele consiliului județean, fără a fi necesară respectarea principiului simetriei formelor ?”

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

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din 25 mai 2020.