Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_169155 AI generated

Legal nature of a parcelar plan under Land Fund Law: administrative/juridical act versus technical document without legal effects

Case Number ICCJ_169155
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, as inadmissible, the request for a preliminary ruling filed by the Harghita County Court, leaving the question unresolved at this level of jurisdiction. The dispute arose from a civil case concerning the land registry, specifically challenging whether a "parcelar plan" constitutes an administrative or juridical act capable of producing legal effects or merely a technical document without legal consequences. The legal basis for the challenge involved the interpretation of Article 27(1), (2), and (41) of Land Fund Law No. 18/1991, as republished with subsequent amendments, under the procedural framework of Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Legal nature of a parcelar plan under Land Fund Law: administrative/juridical act versus technical document without legal effects: The dispute arose from a civil case concerning the land registry, specifically challenging whether a "parcelar plan" constitutes an administrative or juridical act capable of producing legal effects or merely a technical document without legal consequences. The legal basis for the challenge involved the interpretation of Article 27(1), (2), and (41) of Land Fund Law No. 18/1991, as republished with subsequent amendments, under the procedural framework of Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Keywords

AI generated
land law interpretation of the law Civil Procedure Code preliminary ruling procedure effects of a preliminary ruling town-planning regulations
AI generated
Decizia nr. 66/2020
Legal nature of parcel plans under Land Fund Law and admissibility of preliminary ruling for unification of case law
Decizia nr. 3315/2011
Inadmissibility of administrative challenge to land commission decision due to exclusive competence of local court under Land Fund Law
Decizia nr. 3069/2010
Exception of illegality against cadastral technical aviz held inadmissible as non-administrative act; appeal dismissed
ICCJ_187725
Admissibility of judicial reconstitution of land ownership pending finalization of administrative Land Fund Law procedures
Decizia nr. 5183/2011
Land fund petition: Admissibility of appeal against a revision decision under Article 328 of the Code of Civil Procedure

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. 66 Dosar nr. 2135/1/2020

Şedinţa din 26 octombrie 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Harghita - Secţia civilă, în dosarul nr. 1232/234/2014, în vederea pronunțării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

Care este natura juridică a „planului parcelar”, respectiv acesta este un act administrativ/juridic de natură a produce efecte juridice sau este un simplu act tehnic, fără a produce efecte juridice, prin raportare la prevederile art. 27 alin. (1), (2) şi (41) din Legea fondului funciar nr. 18/1991, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare?

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 26 octombrie 2020.