Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_188376 AI generated

Statute of limitations for forced execution of mortgage and its accessory extinction

Case Number ICCJ_188376
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the appeal in the public interest filed by the Board of Directors of the Court of Appeal, issuing a binding interpretation that clarifies the statute of limitations for the right to enforce a mortgage. The dispute concerned the procedural and substantive framework governing the extinction of the creditor’s right to forced execution of a mortgage, specifically whether this right is extinguished accessorially by the prescription of the underlying credit claim and which limitation period applies. The court ruled that the applicable legal regime is determined by the substantive law in force at the time the creditor’s right to execution arose, rendering the procedural law applicable to the specific enforcement proceedings irrelevant. It established that if the prescription of the main credit claim commenced before October 1, 2011, the mortgage enforcement right is extinguished accessorially; however, if the prescription commenced on or after October 1, 2011, the mortgage enforcement right does not fail accessorially even if the main claim is prescribed. For cases where prescription commenced on or after October 1, 2011, the applicable limitation period is three years (under the 1865 Civil Procedure Code) if the period started between October 1, 2011, and February 14, 2013, or ten years (under the current Civil Procedure Code) if it started on or after February 15, 2013. The decision is based on the interpretation of Art. 120 of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 99/2006 in conjunction with Arts. 405(1), 706(1) of the Civil Procedure Codes, Art. 201 of Law No. 71/2011, and Arts. 6(1), (4)-(5), 2504(1) of the Civil Code, as well as Art. 1(2) of Decree No. 167/1958.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 201 din Legea nr. 71/2011, art. 405 alin.(1) teza I din Codul de procedură civilă din 1865, art. 706 alin. (1) teza a II-a din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; Statute of limitations for forced execution of mortgage and its accessory extinction: The dispute concerned the procedural and substantive framework governing the extinction of the creditor’s right to forced execution of a mortgage, specifically whether this right is extinguished accessorially by the prescription of the underlying credit claim and which limitation period applies. The court ruled that the applicable legal regime is determined by the substantive law in force at the time the creditor’s right to execution arose, rendering the procedural law applicable to the specific enforcement proceedings irrelevant. It established that if the prescription of the main credit claim commenced before October 1, 2011, the mortgage enforcement right is extinguished accessorially; however, if the prescription commenced on or after October 1, 2011, the mortgage enforcement right does not fail accessorially even if the main claim is prescribed. For cases where prescription commenced on or after October 1, 2011, the applicable limitation period is three years (under the 1865 Civil Procedure Code) if the period started between October 1, 2011, and February 14, 2013, or ten years (under the current Civil Procedure Code) if it started on or after February 15, 2013. The decision is based on the interpretation of Art. 120 of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 99/2006 in conjunction with Arts. 405(1), 706(1) of the Civil Procedure Codes, Art. 201 of Law No. 71/2011, and Arts. 6(1), (4)-(5), 2504(1) of the Civil Code, as well as Art. 1(2) of Decree No. 167/1958.

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations mortgage enforcement procedural limitations emergency government ordinance interpretation of the law established right

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 201 din Legea nr. 71/2011
(l) din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 201 din Legea nr. 71/2011 şi art.
art. 405 alin.(1) teza I din Codul de procedură civilă din 1865
Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the three-year statute of limitations applicable when the right to forced execution arose between October 1, 2011, and February 14, 2013.
art. 706 alin. (1) teza a II-a din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the ten-year statute of limitations applicable when the right to forced execution arose after February 15, 2013.
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory and binding nature of the interpretation provided by the Complete for the Solution of the Appeal in the Public Interest.
AI generated
ICCJ_192232
Prescription period for forced execution of real estate mortgages securing credit contracts: interplay between accessory extinction under old law and survival under new civil code
Decizia nr. 372/2012
Prescription of forced execution rights for assigned bank claims: interruption by debt recognition and accessory liability of mortgagors
Decizia nr. 856/2006
Extinction of mortgage due to lapse of prescription for forced execution despite interim execution requests
Decizia nr. 1281/2022
Extinguishment of mortgage via enforcement prescription and applicability of pre-2011 limitation laws to conventional executive titles
Decizia nr. 367/2025
Statute of limitations for forced execution: restart after partial annulment of title and interruption by creditor intervention in third-party enforcement proceedings

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 405 alin.(1) teza I din Codul de procedură civilă din 1865

Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the three-year statute of limitations applicable when the right to forced execution arose between October 1, 2011, and February 14, 2013.

art. 706 alin. (1) teza a II-a din Codul de procedură civilă

Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the ten-year statute of limitations applicable when the right to forced execution arose after February 15, 2013.

art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă

Cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory and binding nature of the interpretation provided by the Complete for the Solution of the Appeal in the Public Interest.

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 soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 13 Dosar nr. 471/1/2022

Şedinţa din 6 iunie 2022

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Colegiul de conducere al Curţii de apel Galaţi şi, în consecinţă, în interpretarea art. 120 din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 99/2006, prin raportare la art. 405 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă din 1865, art. 706 alin. (l) din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 201 din Legea nr. 71/2011 şi art. 6 alin. (1), (4) şi (5) din Codul civil, coroborat cu art. 1 alin. (2) din Decretul nr. 167/1958 şi art. 2504 alin. (1) din Codul civil, stabilește că:

1. Regimul juridic aplicabil prescripției dreptului de a obține executarea silită a ipotecii este guvernat de normele de drept substanțial în vigoare la momentul nașterii dreptului creditorului ipotecar de a obține executarea creanței garantate, fiind lipsită de relevanță norma procesuală aplicabilă procedurii de executare silită.

2. Dreptul de a obține executarea silită în temeiul contractului de ipotecă se stinge, pe cale accesorie, prin efectul prescripției executării silite a creanței întemeiate pe contractul de credit, dacă aceasta din urmă începe să curgă anterior datei de 1 octombrie 2011.

3. În cazul în care prescripția dreptului de a obține executarea silită a creanței garantate începe să curgă după 1 octombrie 2011 (inclusiv), executarea silită a ipotecii nu se stinge, pe cale accesorie, chiar dacă dreptul de a obține executarea silită a creanței principale este prescris, situație în care termenul de prescripție aplicabil este de:

- 3 ani, potrivit art. 405 alin.(1) teza I din Codul de procedură civilă din 1865, dacă prescripția dreptului creditorului ipotecar de a obține executarea silită în temeiul contractului de credit a început să curgă în intervalul 01 octombrie 2011-14 februarie 2013.

- 10 ani, potrivit art. 706 alin. (1) teza a II-a din Codul de procedură civilă, dacă prescripția dreptului creditorului ipotecar de a obține executarea silită în temeiul contractului de credit a început să curgă după 15 februarie 2013 (inclusiv).

Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 6 iunie 2022.