Admissibility of requesting direct application of Law 165/2013 amendments via separate motion in appeal without prior valuation critiques
Romania (RO)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible the preliminary question submitted by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, thereby refusing to issue a uniform judicial interpretation on the matter and leaving the lower court's pending proceedings unaffected regarding this specific legal inquiry. The dispute concerned a civil procedure where the plaintiff, who had not raised specific critiques regarding a real estate valuation in their own appeal petition, subsequently sought to apply the amendments from Law No. 165/2013 concerning the restitution of abusively seized property during the communist regime through a separate, self-standing motion within the appellate phase. The court resolved the admissibility of this procedural request by relying on Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, determining that the reference to the High Court did not meet the statutory requirements for a preliminary ruling on a question of law, specifically concerning the direct application of legislative modifications during the appeal process under Articles 477-478 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedart. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Admissibility of requesting direct application of Law 165/2013 amendments via separate motion in appeal without prior valuation critiques: The dispute concerned a civil procedure where the plaintiff, who had not raised specific critiques regarding a real estate valuation in their own appeal petition, subsequently sought to apply the amendments from Law No. 165/2013 concerning the restitution of abusively seized property during the communist regime through a separate, self-standing motion within the appellate phase. The court resolved the admissibility of this procedural request by relying on Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, determining that the reference to the High Court did not meet the statutory requirements for a preliminary ruling on a question of law, specifically concerning the direct application of legislative modifications during the appeal process under Articles 477-478 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedCited in the dispositive as the procedural basis establishing that the judgment is final and mandatory, justifying the dismissal of the preliminary reference.
Full text
ROMÂNIA
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE
Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept
Minuta deciziei nr. 82 Dosar nr. 2562/1/2021
Ședința din 6 decembrie 2021
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
DECIDE:
Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Secţia a III-a civilă şi pentru cauze cu minori şi familie, în dosarul nr. 19731/3/2018, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:
În interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 477 - 478 din Codul de procedură civilă, în absenţa formulării de către reclamant, printr-o cerere proprie de apel, a unor critici în legătură cu evaluarea imobilului, acesta poate solicita ulterior, printr-o cerere de sine stătătoare, aplicarea direct în apel a modificărilor aduse Legii nr. 165/2013 privind măsurile pentru finalizarea procesului de restituire, în natură sau prin echivalent, a imobilelor preluate în mod abuziv în perioada regimului comunist în România, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare?
Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.
Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 6 decembrie 2021.