Legislator Case Law & Legislation
ICCJ_172324 AI generated

Shareholder exclusion grounds are exhaustive under Companies Law; civil code cannot extend them

Case Number ICCJ_172324
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the referral from the Oradea Court of Appeal and ruled that the grounds for excluding a shareholder under Article 222 of Law No. 31/1990 (Companies Law) are not supplemented by Article 1,928 of the Civil Code (Law No. 287/2009), meaning the statutory list of exclusion grounds is exhaustive and cannot be extended via general civil contract provisions. The decision, rendered in a preliminary ruling procedure for the interpretation of law, is binding under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code and resolves the legal question in favor of a restrictive reading of the Companies Law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 222 din Legea nr. 31/1990, Art. 1.928 din Legea nr. 287/2009 privind Codul civil, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Shareholder exclusion grounds are exhaustive under Companies Law; civil code cannot extend them: 31/1990 (Companies Law) are not supplemented by Article 1,928 of the Civil Code (Law No. 287/2009), meaning the statutory list of exclusion grounds is exhaustive and cannot be extended via general civil contract provisions. The decision, rendered in a preliminary ruling procedure for the interpretation of law, is binding under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code and resolves the legal question in favor of a restrictive reading of the Companies Law.

Keywords

AI generated
exclusion of shareholder Civil Procedure Code statutory grounds contract interpretation interpretation of the law preliminary ruling procedure

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 222 din Legea nr. 31/1990
Main ground: the Court ruled that the exclusion hypotheses under this article are not complemented by Art. 1928 Civil Code.
Art. 1.928 din Legea nr. 287/2009 privind Codul civil
Main ground: the Court established that this provision does not complement the exclusion hypotheses of Art. 222 Law No. 31/1990.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive: the ruling is declared mandatory.
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 222 din Legea nr. 31/1990

Main ground: the Court ruled that the exclusion hypotheses under this article are not complemented by Art. 1928 Civil Code.

Art. 1.928 din Legea nr. 287/2009 privind Codul civil

Main ground: the Court established that this provision does not complement the exclusion hypotheses of Art. 222 Law No. 31/1990.

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

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive: the ruling is declared mandatory.

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.28 Dosar nr. 373/1/2021

Şedinţa din 10 mai 2021

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Oradea – Secţia a II-a Civilă și, în consecință, stabilește că:

Ipotezele de excludere a asociatului prevăzute de art. 222 din Legea nr. 31/1990, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, nu se completează cu prevederile art. 1.928 din Legea nr. 287/2009 privind Codul civil.

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 10 mai 2021.