Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 1569/2021 AI generated

Appeal against rejection of disciplinary-file challenge annulled as unstamped.

Case Number Decizia nr. 1569/2021
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 admitted the exception of non-payment of the judicial stamp tax and annulled the appellant's appeal as unstamped, upholding the lower court's decision that had rejected the claim as unfounded. The dispute arose from an administrative challenge against a judicial inspector's resolution and the chief inspector's decision upholding the closure of a disciplinary file; the first-instance court (Bucharest Court of Appeal) had dismissed the claim. The decisive legal basis was the appellant's failure to attach proof of payment of the 100 RON stamp duty for the appeal, as required by Article 486(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, Article 24(1) and Article 33(3) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 80/2013, leading to annulment of the appeal under Article 493(5) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 486 alin. (2) C. proc. civ, art. 24 alin. (1) din O.U.G. nr. 80/2013, art. 493 alin. (5) C. proc. civ, Art. 486 alin. (3) C. proc. civ, Art. 33 alin. (3) din O.U.G. nr. 80/2013; Appeal against rejection of disciplinary-file challenge annulled as unstamped: The dispute arose from an administrative challenge against a judicial inspector's resolution and the chief inspector's decision upholding the closure of a disciplinary file; the first-instance court (Bucharest Court of Appeal) had dismissed the claim. The decisive legal basis was the appellant's failure to attach proof of payment of the 100 RON stamp duty for the appeal, as required by Article 486(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, Article 24(1) and Article 33(3) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 80/2013, leading to annulment of the appeal under Article 493(5) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Keywords

AI generated
payment of stamp duty civil annulment article of civil procedure tax procedure non-administrative dispute proof of payment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 486 alin. (2) C. proc. civ
Imposed the obligation to attach proof of stamp duty payment to the appeal, whose breach led to annulment.
art. 24 alin. (1) din O.U.G. nr. 80/2013
Set the stamp duty fee due for the appeal, which the appellant failed to pay.
art. 493 alin. (5) C. proc. civ
Provided the legal basis for annulling the appeal as unstamped.
Art. 486 alin. (3) C. proc. civ
Provided that the failure to attach the stamp duty proof is sanctioned with nullity.
Art. 33 alin. (3) din O.U.G. nr. 80/2013
Required the stamp duty to be paid in advance, which was not done.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 2363/2010
Appeal annulled as unstamped; prior stamp-fee dismissal affirmed in tax dispute.
Decizia nr. 261/2019
Annullment of appeal as unstampeded due to failure to pay judicial stamp duty
Decizia nr. 190/2022
Appeal annulled as unstamped for failure to pay judicial stamp duty.
Decizia nr. 1229/2024
Appeal annulled as unstamped, prior dismissal and fine upheld
Decizia nr. 319/2025
Appeal annulled as unstamped; tax claim rejection stands and costs imposed on plaintiff

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 486 alin. (2) C. proc. civ.

Imposed the obligation to attach proof of stamp duty payment to the appeal, whose breach led to annulment.

Art. 486 alin. (3) C. proc. civ.

Provided that the failure to attach the stamp duty proof is sanctioned with nullity.

Art. 24 alin. (1) din O.U.G. nr. 80/2013

Set the stamp duty fee due for the appeal, which the appellant failed to pay.

Art. 33 alin. (3) din O.U.G. nr. 80/2013

Required the stamp duty to be paid in advance, which was not done.

Art. 493 alin. (5) C. proc. civ.

Provided the legal basis for annulling the appeal as unstamped.

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

Şedinţa publică din data de 12 martie 2021

Asupra recursului de faţă;

Din examinarea lucrărilor din dosar, constată următoarele:

Prin cererea înregistrată pe rolul Curţii de Apel Bucureşti reclamantul A. a formulat contestaţie împotriva rezoluţiei nr. 5986/U/2713/2018, pronunţate de către inspectorul judiciar judecător B. şi faţă de rezoluţia inspectorului şef C 19 122 din 28 ianuarie 2019 prin care s-a menţinut rezoluţia de clasare a dosarului x/2018.

Prin sentinţa civilă nr. 460 din 18 septembrie 2019 Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, secţia a IX-a contencios administrativ şi fiscal a respins cererea privind pe reclamantul A., în contradictoriu cu pârâta Inspecţia Judiciară, ca neîntemeiată.

Împotriva sentinţei civile nr. 460 din 18 septembrie 2019 pronunţată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, secţia a IX-a contencios administrativ şi fiscal, a declarat recurs reclamantul A..

Analizând cererea de recurs, Înalta Curte constată că recurentul nu a depus dovada achitării taxei judiciare de timbru.

Potrivit art. 486 alin. (2) C. proc. civ.:

"la cererea de recurs se va ataşa dovada achitării taxei de timbru, conform legii, …", iar potrivit alin. (3):

"menţiunile prevăzute la alin. (2) sunt prevăzute sub sancţiunea nulităţii. ..."

Conform art. 24 alin. (1) din O.U.G. nr. 80/2013:

"Recursul împotriva hotărârilor judecătoreşti se taxează cu 100 RON dacă se invocă unul sau mai multe dintre motivele prevăzute la art. 488 alin. (1) pct. 1 - 7 din C. proc. civ.."

De asemenea, potrivit din art. 33 alin. (3) din aceeaşi ordonanţă:

"Taxele judiciare de timbru se plătesc anticipat, cu excepţiile prevăzute de lege".

Din analiza textelor de lege sus citate rezultă că recurentul avea obligaţia să ataşeze, la cererea de recurs, dovada achitării taxelor judiciare de timbru, în cuantumul datorat.

În consecinţă, pentru considerentele arătate şi în raport cu dispoziţiile art. 493 alin. (5) C. proc. civ., Înalta Curte va anula recursul, ca netimbrat.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Admite excepţia netimbrării.

Anulează recursul declarat de recurentul - reclamant A. împotriva sentinţei civile nr. 460 din 18 septembrie 2019 pronunţată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti, secţia a IX-a contencios administrativ şi fiscal, ca netimbrat.

Definitivă.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 12 martie 2021.