Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_234997 AI generated

Private healthcare rooms for medical services exempt from property tax under fiscal code interpretation.

Case Number ICCJ_234997
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted a preliminary ruling request from the Bacău Court of Appeal and held that, under Article 456(1)(h) of the Fiscal Code (Law 227/2015), as amended by Emergency Ordinance 168/2022 and before Law 239/2025 came into force, the term "economic activity" in the phrase "with the exception of rooms used for economic activities" does not cover all activities performed by private healthcare facilities, but only activities other than the provision of medical services to the public. The ruling concerned the interpretation of a tax provision (property tax exemption for medical facility rooms) and is binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The challenged provision was notified for a preliminary ruling by the Bacău Court of Appeal, Section II Civil, Administrative and Fiscal, in case 819/103/2023; the High Court thereby resolved the interpretive question in favor of private healthcare units, as rooms used for providing medical services to the population remain outside the scope of the taxable-room exception.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 456 alin. (1) lit. h) din Legea nr. 227/2015, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Private healthcare rooms for medical services exempt from property tax under fiscal code interpretation: The ruling concerned the interpretation of a tax provision (property tax exemption for medical facility rooms) and is binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The challenged provision was notified for a preliminary ruling by the Bacău Court of Appeal, Section II Civil, Administrative and Fiscal, in case 819/103/2023; the High Court thereby resolved the interpretive question in favor of private healthcare units, as rooms used for providing medical services to the population remain outside the scope of the taxable-room exception.

Keywords

AI generated
tax exemptions fiscal law tax procedure code property tax private property provision of services

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 456 alin. (1) lit. h) din Legea nr. 227/2015
Provision interpreted by the preliminary ruling, as the main ground of the decision.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural rule applied to establish the mandatory effect of the decision.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 67/2026
Interpretation of "economic activity" exception in building tax exemption for private healthcare units
Decizia nr. 1328/2021
Taxability of public hospital housing used for paid medical accommodation under tax exemptions for economic activities.
ICCJ_232208
Taxability of medical reimbursement benefits under Law No. 567/2004: scope of fiscal exemptions under the Fiscal Code
Decizia nr. 1308/2021
Building tax liability for private municipal company managing commercial space: scope of "economic activity" and inapplicability of public-entity tax exemption
Decizia nr. 686/2017
Taxability of hydrotechnical buildings and rooms used for economic activities under the Fiscal Code exemption for flood control and water management structures

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 456 alin. (1) lit. h) din Legea nr. 227/2015

Provision interpreted by the preliminary ruling, as the main ground of the decision.

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

Procedural rule applied to establish the mandatory effect of the decision.

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. 67 Dosar nr. 2512/1/2025

Ședința din 4 mai 2026

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bacău - Secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal în dosarul nr. 819/103/2023, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile şi în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 456 alin. (1) lit. h) din Legea nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Ordonanţa de Urgenţă nr. 168/2022 privind unele măsuri fiscal-bugetare, prorogarea unor termene, precum şi pentru modificarea şi completarea unor acte normative, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, şi până la intrarea în vigoare a Legii nr. 239/2025 privind stabilirea unor măsuri de redresare şi eficientizare a resurselor publice şi pentru modificarea şi completarea unor acte normative, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, noţiunea de „activitate economică” din cuprinsul sintagmei „cu excepţia încăperilor folosite pentru activităţi economice” nu se referă la toate activităţile prestate de unităţile sanitare private, ci vizează alte activităţi decât furnizarea de servicii medicale către populaţie.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 4 mai 2026.