Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_234610 AI generated

Admissibility of request to clarify scope of Framework Law 153/2017 provisions

Case Number ICCJ_234610
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 connected requests for clarification of a legal question filed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, thereby denying the referring court's attempt to seek further interpretation. The dispute concerned whether the application of specific provisions of the Framework Law no. 153/2017, as previously interpreted by the Court's Plenary in Decision no. 80/2023, violated other provisions of the same statute. The decisive legal basis involved the procedural requirement that such requests must be admissible, leading the Court to reject the claims without addressing the substantive interpretation of the legislative framework.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Admissibility of request to clarify scope of Framework Law 153/2017 provisions: The dispute concerned whether the application of specific provisions of the Framework Law no. 153/2017, as previously interpreted by the Court's Plenary in Decision no. 80/2023, violated other provisions of the same statute. The decisive legal basis involved the procedural requirement that such requests must be admissible, leading the Court to reject the claims without addressing the substantive interpretation of the legislative framework.

Keywords

AI generated
framework decision interpretation of the law statutory basis substantive requirements scope of applicable law ascertainment of foreign law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the operative order to establish that the dismissal of the inadmissible requests is final and mandatory.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Decizia nr. 80/2023
Statutory limitation period for contesting property restitution acts: running from formal notification versus actual knowledge under Law No. 290/2003
AI generated
ICCJ_150118
Inadmissibility of request to clarify binding decision on question of law
ICCJ_213699
Clarification of preliminary ruling inadmissible; prior binding decision stands.
ICCJ_178583
Admissibility of preliminary ruling request on statutory composition of penal appellate courts
ICCJ_134003
Inadmissibility of request to clarify operative part of binding decision on a legal question
Decizia nr. 445/2009
Clarification request deemed admissible as contradicting operative part and reasoning; quashed and remanded on certificate obligations.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the operative order to establish that the dismissal of the inadmissible requests is final and mandatory.

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. 339/1/2026

Ședința din 23 martie 2026

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge ca inadmisibile sesizările conexate formulate de Tribunalul Bucureşti – Secţia a II-a contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în dosarele nr. 199/3/2024 şi 19715/3/2024, privind lămurirea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

Aplicarea prevederilor art. 6 lit. b) şi c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017, astfel cum au fost dezlegate prin Decizia nr. 80/2023 a Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept, încalcă dispoziţiile art. 6 lit. f) din acelaşi act normativ?

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 23 martie 2026.