Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_181022 AI generated

Expropriation compensation set by notarial valuations and statutory criteria; referral admitted with binding ruling for broad Article 22(6) interpretation

Case Number ICCJ_181022
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 the referral from the Cluj Court of Appeal and issued a preliminary ruling, establishing that in the judicial phase of expropriation proceedings, Article 22(6) of Law No. 255/2010 must be interpreted extensively, meaning that compensation amounts must be determined by considering both the notaries' updated expert valuations at the time of property transfer and the legal criteria set out in Article 26(2) of Law No. 33/1994. The ruling is binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The dispute concerned the calculation of expropriation compensation for public utility purposes, specifically whether the valuation should rely solely on notarial reports or also incorporate statutory criteria, and the court resolved this interpretive conflict in favor of a broader application.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 22 alin. (6) din Legea nr. 255/2010, art. 26 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 33/1994, Art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Expropriation compensation set by notarial valuations and statutory criteria; referral admitted with binding ruling for broad Article 22(6) interpretation: 255/2010 must be interpreted extensively, meaning that compensation amounts must be determined by considering both the notaries' updated expert valuations at the time of property transfer and the legal criteria set out in Article 26(2) of Law No. 33/1994. The ruling is binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The dispute concerned the calculation of expropriation compensation for public utility purposes, specifically whether the valuation should rely solely on notarial reports or also incorporate statutory criteria, and the court resolved this interpretive conflict in favor of a broader application.

Keywords

AI generated
compensation for expropriation valuation proceedings notary judicial law preliminary ruling procedure Civil Procedure Code

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 22 alin. (6) din Legea nr. 255/2010
Main ground for the decision: establishes that this provision is interpreted extensively in the judicial phase of expropriation to include both notary expert reports and the legal criteria of Art. 26(2) Law 33/1994.
art. 26 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 33/1994
Main ground for the decision: specifies the legal criteria that must be considered in determining expropriation compensation in the judicial phase.
Art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural provision applied in the dispositive to declare the decision mandatory.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 1410/2023
Expropriation Compensation Valuation: Correlation of Notarial Public Chamber Appraisals with Market Value Criteria Under Law No. 255/2010 and Law No. 33/1994
Decizia nr. 78/2021
Scope of Compensation Valuation in Special Expropriation Law: Correlation of Notarial Appraisals with General Market Price Criteria
Decizia nr. 2073/2014
Expropriation compensation valuation: judicial application of Law 33/1994 market value standards overriding Law 255/2010 administrative notary estimates and assessment of loss of building potential for remaining land
Decizia nr. 508/2014
Expropriation compensation upheld at market value per expert report, not notary-grid valuation.
Decizia nr. 542/2017
Judicial expropriation compensation: obligation to base valuation on actual market transaction prices rather than administrative notary guides

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 22 alin. (6) din Legea nr. 255/2010

Main ground for the decision: establishes that this provision is interpreted extensively in the judicial phase of expropriation to include both notary expert reports and the legal criteria of Art. 26(2) Law 33/1994.

Art. 26 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 33/1994

Main ground for the decision: specifies the legal criteria that must be considered in determining expropriation compensation in the judicial phase.

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

Procedural provision applied in the dispositive to declare the decision 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. 78 Dosar nr. 2079/1/2021

Şedinţa din 15 noiembrie 2021

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Cluj – Secţia I civilă, în dosarul nr. 1602/117/2020, privind pronunțarea unei hotărâri prealabile și, în consecință, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea dispoziţiilor art. 22 alin. (6) din Legea nr. 255/2010 privind exproprierea pentru cauză de utilitate publică, necesară realizării unor obiective de interes naţional, judeţean şi local, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, şi ale art. 26 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 33/1994 privind exproprierea pentru cauză de utilitate publică, republicată, cu completările ulterioare, în etapa judiciară a procedurii de expropriere, la determinarea cuantumului despăgubirilor, dispoziţiile art. 22 alin. (6) din Legea nr. 255/2010 se interpretează extensiv, în sensul că se ţine seama atât de „expertizele întocmite şi actualizate de camerele notarilor publici, la momentul transferului dreptului de proprietate”, cât şi de criteriile legale prevăzute de dispoziţiile art. 26 alin. (2) din Legea nr. 33/1994.

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 15 noiembrie 2021.