Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_202197 AI generated

Penalty sum may extend beyond 3 months in successive terms; post-extinguishment issue inadmissible

Case Number ICCJ_202197
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted in part a preliminary ruling request from the Bucharest Tribunal, holding that under Article 906(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, the definitive sum of penalties owed to a creditor may be fixed for a period exceeding 3 months, provided that the period consists only of successive 3-month terms; it rejected as inadmissible the request to rule on whether a definitive penalty sum can be fixed where the obligation was extinguished after the court was seized but before the 3-month interval from the communication of the penalty order elapsed. The decision is binding under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The underlying dispute concerned the interpretation of penalty-fixing rules in enforcement proceedings, specifically whether the definitive amount can cover multiple consecutive 3-month intervals and whether post-seizure extinguishment affects the determination. The court reasoned that the statutory 3-month minimum does not cap the total period, but the issue of post-extinguishment determination was not a proper subject for a preliminary ruling and thus not decided on the merits.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 906 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Penalty sum may extend beyond 3 months in successive terms; post-extinguishment issue inadmissible: The decision is binding under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The underlying dispute concerned the interpretation of penalty-fixing rules in enforcement proceedings, specifically whether the definitive amount can cover multiple consecutive 3-month intervals and whether post-seizure extinguishment affects the determination. The court reasoned that the statutory 3-month minimum does not cap the total period, but the issue of post-extinguishment determination was not a proper subject for a preliminary ruling and thus not decided on the merits.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement proceedings article of civil procedure preliminary ruling procedure periodic penalty payment the term 'judgment' limitation periods

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 906 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Subject of the preliminary ruling on interpretation and application.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Declared the ruling binding.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 37/2023
Cumulative fixation of enforcement penalties across successive three-month periods under Article 906(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure
ICCJ_172411
Right to fix definitive penalty sum when debtor performs within three months of interlocutory ruling under Article 906(4) of the Civil Procedure Code
Decizia nr. 16/2017
Repeated requests for fixing final civil penalty sums under Art. 906(4) Civil Procedure Code inadmissible after initial determination
Decizia nr. 39/2021
Inadmissibility of preliminary reference on whether final penalty sums can be fixed when debtor performs within statutory three-month deadline under Civil Procedure Code
Decizia nr. 77/RC/2019
Prosecution’s appeal admitted; sentence increased to 3 years and 1 month for unlawful aggregate penalty

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 906 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă

Subject of the preliminary ruling on interpretation and application.

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

Declared the ruling binding.

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. 37 Dosar nr. 2637/1/2022

Ședința din 15 mai 2023

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Bucureşti – Secţia a IV-a civilă, în dosarul nr. 28297/302/2021, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile privind interpretarea și aplicarea dispozițiilor art. 906 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

Este posibilă fixarea sumei definitive ce i se datorează creditorului, cu titlu de penalități, pentru un interval de timp mai mare de 3 luni, dar compus numai din termene de câte 3 luni.

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Bucureşti – Secţia a IV-a civilă, în același dosar, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea dispoziţiilor art. 906 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă, se poate stabili suma definitivă datorată cu titlu de penalităţi în ipoteza stingerii obligaţiei ulterior sesizării instanţei cu cererea de stabilire a sumei definitive şi după trecerea unui interval de cel puţin trei luni de la data comunicării încheierii de aplicare a penalităţilor?

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 15 mai 2023.