Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_225819 AI generated

Admissibility of unity-of-law referral on statutory limits for revocation of national anticorruption prosecutors

Case Number ICCJ_225819
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 submitted by the Sibiu Court of Appeal regarding the unification of case law. The underlying dispute concerned the statutory grounds for revocation from office for a national anticorruption prosecutor, specifically whether the limited grounds enumerated in Article 10(61) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 43/2002 (referring to Article 2713 of Law No. 360/2002 on the police statute) preclude the invocation of other motives, such as disciplinary reasons, and whether such grounds require prior definitive solutions. The Court found the referral non-compliant with the admissibility requirements for uniting case law under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby leaving the lower court's pending interpretation issue unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 2713 din Legea nr. 360/2002, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Admissibility of unity-of-law referral on statutory limits for revocation of national anticorruption prosecutors: The underlying dispute concerned the statutory grounds for revocation from office for a national anticorruption prosecutor, specifically whether the limited grounds enumerated in Article 10(61) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 43/2002 (referring to Article 2713 of Law No. 360/2002 on the police statute) preclude the invocation of other motives, such as disciplinary reasons, and whether such grounds require prior definitive solutions. The Court found the referral non-compliant with the admissibility requirements for uniting case law under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby leaving the lower court's pending interpretation issue unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

Keywords

AI generated
disciplinary law invocation of statutory grounds interpretation of the law article of civil procedure unity of the legal order emergency government ordinance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 2713 din Legea nr. 360/2002
43/2002 privind Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie, motivele ce stau la baza revocării din funcţie sunt sau nu limitate la cazurile de încetare a detaşării prevăzute de art. 2713 din Legea nr. 360/2002 privind statutul poliţistului ori textul de lege al art.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Establishes the mandatory effect of the decision on the referring court.
AI generated
ICCJ_237645
Mixed Anticorruption Team Validity Referral Inadmissible
Decizia nr. 1167/2017
Admissibility of constitutional referral regarding sole-judge appellate jurisdiction in criminal protests
Decizia nr. 115/2024
Preliminary ruling referral inadmissible where prior mandatory decisions already resolved legality and prescription questions for corruption cases.
Decizia nr. 1/2018
Admissibility of preliminary referral seeking interpretation of Constitutional Court decision's effect on decriminalization of abuse of office
Decizia nr. 28/2015
Referral on criminal appellate jurisdiction and exclusion of illegal evidence declared inadmissible as lacking a genuine legal question

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Establishes the mandatory effect of the decision on the referring court.

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. 153 Dosar nr. 2627/1/2024

Ședința din 5 mai 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge ca inadmisibilă sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Sibiu – Secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal privind dezlegarea următoarei probleme de drept:

„Dacă, în aplicarea dispoziţiilor art. 10 alin. (61) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 43/2002 privind Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie, motivele ce stau la baza revocării din funcţie sunt sau nu limitate la cazurile de încetare a detaşării prevăzute de art. 2713 din Legea nr. 360/2002 privind statutul poliţistului ori textul de lege al art. 10 alin. (61) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 43/2002 permite sau nu invocarea şi a altor motive, precum şi care ar fi natura acestora, de exemplu de natură disciplinară, iar în caz afirmativ, dacă motivele trebuie sau nu întemeiate pe soluţii definitive anterioare emiterii Ordinului?”.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 5 mai 2025.