Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_160855 AI generated

Supplementary applicability of 1994 expropriation law time limits to 2010 public utility expropriations

Case Number ICCJ_160855
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 for a preliminary ruling requested by the Court of Appeal of Constanța. The dispute concerned the interpretation of Article 34 of Law No. 255/2010 regarding expropriation for public utility and whether it is supplemented by Article 35 of Law No. 33/1994, specifically regarding the applicability of the time limits set forth in the older law to expropriations executed under the 2010 statute. The court did not resolve the substantive legal questions but instead rejected the procedural request, leaving the matter unresolved at the appellate level under the existing procedural framework. The decision is based on the procedural rules for preliminary references under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, determining that the reference did not meet the admissibility criteria required for a mandatory uniform interpretation by the High Court.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 34 din Legea nr. 255/2010, art. 35 din Legea nr. 33/1994, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Supplementary applicability of 1994 expropriation law time limits to 2010 public utility expropriations: The dispute concerned the interpretation of Article 34 of Law No. 255/2010 regarding expropriation for public utility and whether it is supplemented by Article 35 of Law No. 33/1994, specifically regarding the applicability of the time limits set forth in the older law to expropriations executed under the 2010 statute. The court did not resolve the substantive legal questions but instead rejected the procedural request, leaving the matter unresolved at the appellate level under the existing procedural framework. The decision is based on the procedural rules for preliminary references under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, determining that the reference did not meet the admissibility criteria required for a mandatory uniform interpretation by the High Court.

Keywords

AI generated
expropriation reference for a preliminary ruling procedural time limits public utility interpretation of the law Civil Procedure Code

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 34 din Legea nr. 255/2010
Dacă din interpretarea art. 34 din Legea nr.
art. 35 din Legea nr. 33/1994
255/2010 şi termenele prevăzute de art. 35 din Legea nr. 33/1994?
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited as the legal basis establishing the mandatory nature of the court's decision.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 51/2020
Expropriation-referral ruling inadmissible; one-year reclaim deadline under Law 33/1994 not applicable to Law 255/2010 takings.
Decizia nr. 710/2009
Public utility expropriation: strict limitations on Article 304 CPC appeal grounds and evidentiary review
Decizia nr. 4713/2008
Retrocession of partially utilized expropriated land: inapplicability of Law 33/1994 after commencement of public utility works and exclusive application of Law 10/2001
Decizia nr. 3311/2014
Expropriation compensation: limitation period for loss-of-use claims and defendant's procedural standing as state representative
Decizia nr. 2921/2009
Applicability of special restitution law to pre-2001 expropriation claims barred by Article 35 of the Expropriation Law

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited as the legal basis establishing the mandatory 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. 51 Dosar nr. 787/1/2020

Şedinţa din 22 iunie 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Constanța – Secţia I civilă, în dosarul nr. 2567/118/2016, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

1) Dacă din interpretarea art. 34 din Legea nr. 255/2010 privind exproprierea pentru cauză de utilitate publică, necesară realizării unor obiective de interes naţional, judeţean şi local, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, se poate aprecia că dispoziţiile acestei legi se completează în mod corespunzător şi cu dispoziţiile art. 35 din Legea nr. 33/1994 privind exproprierea pentru cauză de utilitate publică, republicată.

2) În cazul în care răspunsul la prima întrebare este afirmativ, sunt aplicabile exproprierilor efectuate în temeiul Legii nr. 255/2010 şi termenele prevăzute de art. 35 din Legea nr. 33/1994?

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 22 iunie 2020.