Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_185495 AI generated

District court has jurisdiction in medical malpractice damages claims absent special procedure; appeal in the interest of law admitted.

Case Number ICCJ_185495
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

In a decision on an appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Ombudsman, the High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the appeal and ruled that, for claims seeking material and/or moral damages for medical malpractice based on tort liability, where the special prior procedure under Articles 679–685 of Law No. 95/2006 has not been followed, material jurisdiction belongs to the district court (judecătorie), not the tribunal. The Court thus resolved the conflicting interpretations of Articles 684 and 687 of Law No. 95/2006 and Articles 94(1)(k) and 95(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, holding that the district court is the competent first-instance forum in such cases; this interpretation is binding under Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 684 şi 687 din Legea nr. 95/2006, art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; District court has jurisdiction in medical malpractice damages claims absent special procedure; appeal in the interest of law admitted: 95/2006 has not been followed, material jurisdiction belongs to the district court (judecătorie), not the tribunal. The Court thus resolved the conflicting interpretations of Articles 684 and 687 of Law No. 95/2006 and Articles 94(1)(k) and 95(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, holding that the district court is the competent first-instance forum in such cases; this interpretation is binding under Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Keywords

AI generated
medical malpractice civil liability damages special jurisdiction conflict of jurisdiction article of civil procedure interpretation of the law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 684 şi 687 din Legea nr. 95/2006
Basis for establishing the material competence for tort liability cases in the context of medical malpractice.
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Provides that the decision is binding for all instances, as established in the dispositive.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 62/2015
Medical malpractice jurisdiction: Special statutory competence of district court over value-based criteria
ICCJ_187622
Subject-matter jurisdiction for medical malpractice tort claims: application of special statutory competence over common law value-based limits
ICCJ_86850
Medical malpractice jurisdiction: Special statutory competence of local courts over value-based jurisdiction under Law No. 95/2006
Decizia nr. 783/2021
Medical malpractice damages action subject to exclusive jurisdiction of local court under Law No. 95/2006 despite prior fault adjudication
Decizia nr. 364/2022
Territorial jurisdiction for medical malpractice claims under Law No. 95/2006

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 684 şi 687 din Legea nr. 95/2006

Basis for establishing the material competence for tort liability cases in the context of medical malpractice.

art. 94 pct. 1 lit. k) şi art. 95 pct. 1 din Codul de procedură civilă

Provisions used to determine the material competence of the court, assigning the case to the judecătorie.

art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă

Provides that the decision is binding for all instances, as established in the dispositive.

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 soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 5 Dosar nr. 3065/1/2021

Şedinţa din 21 februarie 2022

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE: Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Avocatul Poporului și, în consecinţă, stabileşte că: În interpretarea și aplicarea unitară a prevederilor art. 684 şi 687 din Legea nr. 95/2006 şi ale art. 94 pct. 1 lit. k) şi art. 95 pct. 1 din Codul de procedură civilă, competenţa materială de soluţionare a cauzelor având ca obiect obligarea pe temei delictual a pârâţilor la achitarea daunelor materiale şi/sau morale pentru malpraxis, în situaţia în care nu a fost urmată procedura reglementată de dispoziţiile art. 679 - 685 din Legea nr. 95/2006, aparţine judecătoriei. Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă. Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 21 februarie 2022.