Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_192467 AI generated

Inadmissibility of preliminary ruling on fiscal forced execution in insolvency proceedings and unique insolvency account

Case Number ICCJ_192467
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 request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Court of Appeal of Timișoara, leaving the lower court’s procedural determination in force. The dispute concerned a civil procedure where the referring court sought clarification on the compatibility of specific provisions of the Fiscal Procedure Code with the Law on Prevention of Insolvency and Insolvency, specifically questioning the application of forced execution rules, the permissibility of garnishing the unique insolvency account as a derogation from statutory limits, and whether ceased forced executions are considered ongoing under relevant legal provisions. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal relies on the inapplicability of the preliminary ruling mechanism under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the specific issues raised, which did not meet the statutory criteria for a binding interpretation by the supreme court, rendering the referral inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 2663 din Legea nr. 207/2015, art. 163 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 85/2014, art. 75 din Legea nr. 85/2014, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of preliminary ruling on fiscal forced execution in insolvency proceedings and unique insolvency account: The dispute concerned a civil procedure where the referring court sought clarification on the compatibility of specific provisions of the Fiscal Procedure Code with the Law on Prevention of Insolvency and Insolvency, specifically questioning the application of forced execution rules, the permissibility of garnishing the unique insolvency account as a derogation from statutory limits, and whether ceased forced executions are considered ongoing under relevant legal provisions. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal relies on the inapplicability of the preliminary ruling mechanism under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the specific issues raised, which did not meet the statutory criteria for a binding interpretation by the supreme court, rendering the referral inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
fiscal law insolvency preliminary ruling procedure procedural issues Civil Procedure Code interpretation of a judgment
AI generated
ICCJ_192808
Inadmissibility of request for preliminary ruling on conflict between tax code forced execution and insolvency law protections for insolvency accounts
ICCJ_153561
Scope of individual forced execution and attachment of unique insolvency accounts under collective insolvency procedures
ICCJ_154531
Inadmissibility of preliminary ruling on individual enforcement in insolvency proceedings governed by the 1865 Code of Civil Procedure
ICCJ_222075
Inadmissibility of preliminary ruling on inclusion and provision of conditional claims in insolvency reorganization plans
ICCJ_170644
Preliminary ruling referral held inadmissible; insolvency priority-ranking questions deemed case-specific application, not legal interpretation.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Basis for the mandatory nature of the decision and the procedural framework governing the preliminary ruling mechanism.

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. 56 Dosar nr. 1055/1/2022

Ședința din 3 octombrie 2022

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Timişoara - Secția a II-a civilă, în dosarul nr. 3087/30/2015/a36, în vederea pronunțării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarelor chestiuni de drept:

1. Dacă aplicarea prevederilor art. 2661, art. 2663 din Legea nr. 207/2015 privind Codul de procedură fiscală, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, introduse prin Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 30/2017 pentru modificarea şi completarea Legii nr. 207/2015 privind Codul de procedură fiscală, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 150/2018, este compatibilă cu Legea nr. 85/2014 privind procedurile de prevenire a insolvenţei şi de insolvenţă, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare?

2. Care sunt în concret modalitățile de executare silită care pot fi efectuate potrivit Codului de procedură fiscală? Se poate dispune inclusiv poprirea contului unic de insolvență, prin derogare de la prevederile art. 163 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 85/2014?

3. Sunt considerate în curs executările silite încetate ope legis în temeiul art. 75 din Legea nr. 85/2014, conform dispozițiilor art. 352 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură fiscală?

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 3 octombrie 2022.