The law, adopted by the Chamber of Deputies on 3 July 2019, was reviewed at the request of the President of Romania. Following the review, it was decided that works that declare themselves to be of national interest and cross localities, county roads, towns and municipalities, ensure links with municipalities, towns and communes, and are necessary to achieve objectives for the development of local infrastructure, works on the production and distribution of electricity and heat aimed at the sustainable use of water resources, a natural monopoly of strategic interest for the realization of hydropower installations , are works of major public interest.
The result of the vote was 178 in in a fight, 111 against, 4 abstentions, and 1 did not vote.
With regard to that law, I recall a topical point, since at the hearing of 2 March 2020, the High Court met to discuss several complaints concerning the delegation of a question of law in civil matters, including that relating to the interpretation of the provisions of Articles 22 and 34 of Law No 2/2002. 255/2010 on expropriation for reasons of public utility, necessary to achieve objectives of national, county and local interest, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 21-27 of Law No. 33/1994 on expropriation for reasons of public utility.
By Decision No 1/2002/EC of 31/2020, BCCJ (Complete DCD/C) admitted the referral made by the Craiova Court of Appeal – Civil Division I in file No. 847/95/2019.
Thus, in the interpretation and application of the provisions of Articles 22 and 34 of Law No 2/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 1999 on the protection of the environment and the environment in the Community(6 255/2010 on expropriation for reasons of public utility, necessary to achieve objectives of national, county and local interest, republished, with subsequent amendments and additions, the form prior to the amendment by Law No. 233/2018 for the amendment and completion of Law No 233/2018. 255/2010 on expropriation for reasons of public utility, necessary to achieve objectives of national, county and local interest, in conjunction with Article 21-27 of Law No 255/27. 33/1994 on expropriation for reasons of public utility, republished, the High Court has determined that: "the compensation established in the procedure laid down in Law No 1/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 199 255/2010, by final judgment, is not compatible with the award of moratory damages based on the provisions of Article 1.535 of the Civil Code, for non-payment of that amount during the period between the date of transfer of ownership and the date on which the judgment on the appeal on the amount of compensation was finalised.
Compensation established by a final judgment, given in the procedure laid down in Law No 1/2002, shall be deemed to have been paid in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14 of the Treaty. 255/2010, is compatible with the award of moratory damages based on the provisions of Article 1.535 of the Civil Code, if they are requested for the period after the date on which the judicial procedure for the resolution of the appeal referred to in Article 22 (1) was completed. (1) of Law No 1/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 255/2010".
Our organisation represents excellence in the field of judicial expertise, so if you think you need the best specialists you do not want to contact us or if you are in a critical situation to buy time fill out the form below.
Thank you very much.
About the author