Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_219203 AI generated

Judicial costs omission: supplementation motion versus correction of judgment under Civil Procedure Code

Case Number ICCJ_219203
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 referral from the Bacau Tribunal, meaning no new legal interpretation was established and the lower court's pending proceedings remain governed by the existing procedural framework. The dispute concerned a procedural question of whether a party, whose request for specific litigation costs (e.g., expert fees) was omitted from a judgment that otherwise addressed legal expenses, could remedy the omission through a motion for supplementation of the judgment or a correction of the judicial decision. The decisive legal basis involves the admissibility criteria for the special procedure for resolving legal issues and the interpretation of Article 444(1) and Article 442(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, which distinguish between the remedies available for omitted dispositive elements versus formal errors.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Judicial costs omission: supplementation motion versus correction of judgment under Civil Procedure Code: The dispute concerned a procedural question of whether a party, whose request for specific litigation costs (e.g., expert fees) was omitted from a judgment that otherwise addressed legal expenses, could remedy the omission through a motion for supplementation of the judgment or a correction of the judicial decision. The decisive legal basis involves the admissibility criteria for the special procedure for resolving legal issues and the interpretation of Article 444(1) and Article 442(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, which distinguish between the remedies available for omitted dispositive elements versus formal errors.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural costs Civil Procedure Code interpretation of a judgment pending proceedings offence of omission compensation for judicial errors

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
This provision is cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision rendered is mandatory and binding on the referring court and other courts.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3661/2010
Omission of litigation costs award in revision decision and legal basis for completing judgment
Decizia nr. 1905/2010
Correction of judicial omission in awarding attorney's fees under civil procedure completion rules
Decizia nr. 82/2013
Completion of final judgment: Omission of ruling on litigation costs in appellate proceedings
Decizia nr. 2122/2019
Omission of litigation costs in revision judgment; partial cost allocation due to concurrent dismissal and declination of jurisdiction
Decizia nr. 3383/2025
Omission of litigation costs request justifies completion of dispositive under Code of Civil Procedure Article 444

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

This provision is cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision rendered is mandatory and binding on the referring court and other courts.

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. 48 Dosar nr. 1393/1/2024

Ședința din 7 octombrie 2024

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Bacău – Secţia I civilă, în dosarul nr. 5613/270/2019/a1*, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

„Dacă instanţa a soluţionat cererea de acordare a cheltuielilor de judecată, însă a omis să se pronunţe asupra unei categorii de cheltuieli de judecată, solicitate şi dovedite cu înscrisuri depuse la dosar (spre exemplu, onorariul cuvenit expertului judiciar), partea a cărei cerere a fost omisă de la pronunţare poate recurge la complinirea acestei omisiuni prin promovarea unei cereri de completare, în condiţiile art. 444 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă, sau la îndreptarea hotărârii judecătoreşti prevăzută de art. 442 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură civilă?”.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 7 octombrie 2024.