Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_211988 AI generated

Peremption clock for forced execution referral ruled inadmissible

Case Number ICCJ_211988
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 dismissed as inadmissible the referral by the Bucharest Tribunal seeking a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 697(2), second sentence, of the Civil Procedure Code—specifically, whether the limitation period for the peremption of forced execution runs from the creditor’s request for suspension of execution or from the bailiff’s earlier written request for the creditor to perform a necessary act. The referral was rejected without ruling on the merits, and the decision is binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code; because the referral was inadmissible, no interpretative ruling was issued and the underlying execution dispute remains unresolved as to that question.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Peremption clock for forced execution referral ruled inadmissible: The referral was rejected without ruling on the merits, and the decision is binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code; because the referral was inadmissible, no interpretative ruling was issued and the underlying execution dispute remains unresolved as to that question.

Keywords

AI generated
limitation periods suspension of sentence preliminary decision preliminary ruling procedure Civil Procedure Code request to proceed with execution
AI generated
ICCJ_230718
Limitation-period and act-of-execution preliminary questions rejected as inadmissible
Decizia nr. 10/2016
Inadmissible referral seeking to modify final suspended execution rulings via objection to execution
Decizia nr. 59/2022
Suspendation of forced execution statute of limitations by state of emergency decrees under Civil Procedure Code Art. 708(1)(4)
ICCJ_178526
Inadmissibility of referral on statute of limitations for forced execution of pre-1965 mortgage securing credit obligation
ICCJ_192467
Inadmissibility of preliminary ruling on fiscal forced execution in insolvency proceedings and unique insolvency account

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. 14 Dosar nr. 121/1/2024

Ședința din 25 martie 2024

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Bucureşti - Secţia a V-a civilă, în dosarul nr. 25360/302/2019, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarea chestiune de drept:

„Interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 697 alin. (2) teza a doua din Codul de procedură civilă, respectiv dacă termenul de perimare a executării silite curge de la data cererii de suspendare a executării silite formulate de creditor sau de la data solicitării scrise a executorului judecătoresc privind îndeplinirea de către creditor a unui act sau demers necesar executării silite, anterioară cererii de suspendare a executării silite.”

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 25 martie 2024.