Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_229644 AI generated

Statute of limitations suspension in insurer subrogation actions under compulsory auto liability law

Case Number ICCJ_229644
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 (ICCJ) dismissed as inadmissible the request for a preliminary ruling on a question of law filed by the Tribunal of Hunedoara, resulting in no substantive decision on the merits and no change to the underlying civil proceedings. The dispute centered on whether the suspension of the statute of limitations under Article 1394 of the Civil Code applies to a subrogation action brought by an auto insurance company against the party responsible for an accident, based on Article 25(b) of Law No. 132/2017 concerning compulsory civil liability insurance for motor vehicle damage. The key legal issue involved the interpretation of the interaction between the specific limitation periods in the insurance law, Articles 1394, 1597, and 2528 of the Civil Code, and the procedural admissibility of the constitutional court’s intervention under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the lower court’s reference being rejected on procedural grounds rather than substantive legal analysis.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 25 lit. b) din Legea nr. 132/2017, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Statute of limitations suspension in insurer subrogation actions under compulsory auto liability law: The dispute centered on whether the suspension of the statute of limitations under Article 1394 of the Civil Code applies to a subrogation action brought by an auto insurance company against the party responsible for an accident, based on Article 25(b) of Law No. 132/2017 concerning compulsory civil liability insurance for motor vehicle damage. The key legal issue involved the interpretation of the interaction between the specific limitation periods in the insurance law, Articles 1394, 1597, and 2528 of the Civil Code, and the procedural admissibility of the constitutional court’s intervention under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the lower court’s reference being rejected on procedural grounds rather than substantive legal analysis.

Keywords

AI generated
subrogation of insurer statute of limitations motor vehicle liability insurance compulsory accident insurance action for liability suspension period

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 25 lit. b) din Legea nr. 132/2017
În interpretarea şi aplicarea art. 25 lit. b) din Legea nr. 132/2017 privind asigurarea obligatorie de răspundere civilă auto pentru prejudicii produse terţilor prin accidente de vehicule şi tramvaie, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, raportat la art.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory binding nature of the ICCJ's decision dismissing the referral.
AI generated
ICCJ_199873
Applicability of Civil Code statute of limitations extension to insurer’s regression action under mandatory auto liability law
Decizia nr. 1270/2019
Liability insurance litigation: standing of compulsory intervener to invoke statute of limitations under Civil Code
Decizia nr. 63/2022
Admissibility of reference on the applicable limitation period for insurer's subrogation claim against insured in mandatory automobile liability insurance
Decizia nr. 1446/2008
Insurer subrogation against at-fault driver under Law No. 136/1995 and three-year delictual statute of limitations
Decizia nr. 2592/2004
Prescription of insurance liability claims: application of two-year special limitation period and exclusion of suspension during related criminal proceedings

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory binding nature of the ICCJ's decision dismissing the referral.

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. 351 Dosar nr. 1260/1/2025

Ședința din 6 octombrie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Hunedoara - Secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în dosarul nr. 8964/221/2022, în vederea pronunțării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarea chestiune de drept:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea art. 25 lit. b) din Legea nr. 132/2017 privind asigurarea obligatorie de răspundere civilă auto pentru prejudicii produse terţilor prin accidente de vehicule şi tramvaie, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, raportat la art. 1.394, art. 1.597 şi art. 2.528 din Codul civil, în ipoteza unei acţiuni în regres a asigurătorului împotriva persoanei răspunzătoare de producerea accidentului, întemeiate pe dispoziţiile art. 25 lit. b) din Legea nr. 132/2017, este incidentă prorogarea termenului de prescripţie prevăzută de art. 1.394 din Codul civil?

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 6 octombrie 2025.