BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW

Transcription

1 BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW PROJECT REFERENCE: JLS/2006/FPC/21 30-CE THE EFFECT IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS: RECOGNITION, RES JUDICATA AND ABUSE OF PROCESS Project Advisory Board: The Rt Hon Sir Francis Jacobs KCMG QC (chair); Lord Mance; Mr David Anderson QC; Dr Peter Barnett; Mr Peter Beaton; Professor Adrian Briggs; Professor Burkhard Hess; Mr Adam Johnson; Mr Alex Layton QC; Professor Paul Oberhammer; Professor Rolf Stürner; Ms Mona Vaswani; Professor Rhonda Wasserman Project National Rapporteurs: Mr Peter Beaton (Scotland); Professor Alegría Borrás (Spain); Mr Andrew Dickinson (England and Wales); Mr Javier Areste Gonzalez (Spain Assistant Rapporteur); Mr Christian Heinze (Germany); Professor Lars Heuman (Sweden); Mr Urs Hoffmann-Nowotny (Switzerland Assistant Rapporteur); Professor Emmanuel Jeuland (France); Professor Paul Oberhammer (Switzerland); Mr Jonas Olsson (Sweden Assistant Rapporteur); Mr Mikael Pauli (Sweden Assistant Rapporteur); Dr Norel Rosner (Romania); Ms Justine Stefanelli (United States); Mr Jacob van de Velden (Netherlands) Project Director: Jacob van de Velden Project Research Fellow: Justine Stefanelli Project Consultant: Andrew Dickinson Project Research Assistants: Elina Konstantinidou and Daniel Vasbeck 1

2 QUESTIONNAIRE Romania - Dr Norel Rosner The Effect in the European Community of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: Recognition, Res Judicata and Abuse of Process Instructions to National Rapporteurs Please use the following questions to describe the current position in the country for which you have been appointed as National Rapporteur. Please respond to the following questions as fully as possible, with appropriate reference to, and quotation of, supporting authority (e.g. case law and, where appropriate, the views of legal writers). Please give full citations to supporting authority using the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) guidelines, a copy of which will be provided by the Institute. Please begin your typed responses directly below each question. Please indicate the name of your country and your official title(s) at the top of the answer sheet under Questionnaire. It is recommended that you read through the entire questionnaire and its accompanying guidelines before you begin to draft your responses. This applies equally when you start answering a question that is part of a specific section. Please quote and translate into English the rules of the civil procedure code (and a summary of any travaux préparatoires) that deal with judgments and which you refer to for the purpose of your answer, as well as indicate and translate the legal terminology used to describe the elements of judgments. Timetable The National Rapporteurs have a period of two months to produce a first full draft of their respective national reports (a consultancy and copy right licensing agreement will be sent to the rapporteurs separately). At the meeting of 4 and 5 October it was agreed that the National Rapporteurs will submit their national reports in due time before the second meeting of the rapporteurs that will take place in London on 17 and 18 January (dates to be confirmed). All rapporteurs further agreed to submit draft answers on the first part of the questionnaire one month after the questionnaire has been sent out to allow for discussion and feedback through the project extranet and . 2

3 I. Judgments...5 A. The concept, form, structure and terminology of judgments... 5 B. The final determination and findings on issues of fact and law... 9 C. The binding character of a judgment... 9 D. Judgments that are capable of having preclusive effects I. Preclusive effects...12 A. Claim preclusion Existence and nature of claim preclusive effects Policies underlying claim preclusive effects Conditions for claim preclusive effects Invoking claim preclusive effects Exceptions to claim preclusive effects Claimant and Defendant Other participants Represented persons Persons connected to the Claimant, Defendant, and other participants Strangers...18 B. Issue preclusion The existence and nature of issue preclusive effects Policies underlying issue preclusive effects Conditions for issue preclusive effects Invoking issue preclusive effects Exceptions to issue preclusive effects Claimant and Defendant Other participants Represented persons Persons connected to the Claimant, Defendant, and other participants Strangers...21 C. Wider preclusive effects The existence and nature of wider preclusive effects Policies underlying wider preclusive effects Conditions for wider preclusive effects Invoking wider preclusive effects Exceptions to wider preclusive effects Claimant and Defendant Other participants Represented persons Persons connected to the Claimant, Defendant, and other participants Strangers...23 II. Preclusive effects of judgments within the Brussels/Lugano Regime...25 A. Recognition Judgments recognised Procedural aspects of recognition Exceptions to the rule (grounds for non-recognition) Effects of recognition

4 B. Claim preclusion within the Brussels/Lugano Regime Existence and nature of claim preclusive effects Policies underlying claim preclusive effects Law applicable to claim preclusive effects Conditions for claim preclusive effects The identity of claims in the Brussels/Lugano Regime The identity of parties in the Brussels/Lugano Regime Invoking claim preclusive effects under the Brussels/Lugano Regime Exceptions to claim preclusive effects under the Brussels/Lugano Regime Persons affected by claim preclusive effects...29 C. Issue preclusion Existence and nature of issue preclusive effects Policies underlying issue preclusive effects Law applicable to issue preclusive effects Conditions for issue preclusive effects Invoking issue preclusive effects Exceptions to issue preclusive effects Persons affected by issue preclusive effects...30 D. Wider preclusion (abuse of process/claims and issues that could or should have been raised) The existence and nature of wider preclusive effects Policies underlying wider preclusive effects The law applicable to wider preclusive effects Conditions for wider preclusive effects Invoking wider preclusive effects Exceptions to wider preclusive effects Persons affected by wider preclusive effects...32 E. Authentic instruments/court approved settlements III. Preclusive effects of third state judgments

5 I. Judgments A. The concept, form, structure and terminology of judgments Please describe the typical concept, form, structure and terminology of judgments in your legal system. As a matter of legal terminology, there are three types of judgments that Romanian courts can render in civil and commercial matters, depending on the nature of the court and the matter settled through such judgment 1. Accordingly, judgments on the merits rendered by courts of first instance (Judecatorie or Tribunal) are named sentinta or sentinte (plural). It should be noted that the reference in the Code of Civil Procedure to judgments on the merits includes any judgements rendered in first instance whereby the court will no longer try the respective case (eg: declination of jurisdiction, inadmissibility of the claim, annulment of the complaint) 2. Judgments rendered in appeal or as a result of an appeal in cassation (recurs), as well as judgments rendered as a result of a request for revision in the interest of the law (recurs in interesul legii) are named decizie or decizii (plural) 3. Finally, any other judgments rendered by court are generically named incheiere or incheieri (plural) 4. In literature, the general term used to describe any legal acts issued by courts in Romania is hotarare judecatoreasca, which means literally judicial decision 5. Alternatively, the same term is used in a narrower sense, to describe only the final and imperative act issued by courts which resolves the litigation between parties and which has res judicata effects 6, in fact comparable with the English term judgment. In other words, the term is used to describe the first two types of judgments mentioned above, namely sentinte and decizii. The same conclusion may be drawn if one takes into consideration the language of article 255 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This would be the sense in which this terminology will be used in the present chapter. As a consequence, when reference is being made to judgment(s) or its Romanian equivalent of hotarare judecatoreasca, one has in mind a court's final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a case, in other words sentinte and decizii. Separate reference will be made when other types of judicial acts ( incheiere ) will be mentioned. With regard to its form and structure, a Romanian judgment will typically consist of three main parts 7 : A first part, called practica will include (i) details of the court and of the judges that tried the case, (ii) the name, domicile or habitual residence of the parties, their procedural role, as well as the names of their legal representatives and of their attorneys, (iii) the object of the claim, as well as briefly the parties contentions and the evidence provided, and (iv) the statement(s) submitted by the public prosecutor ( procuror ), where it participates in the trail 8 ; A second part, called considerente or motivare would essentially consist of the factual and legal reasons that led to the court s decision, including the decision related to the rejection of the claim(s) 9. Lack of reasoning or improper reasoning may trigger the nullity of the judgment 10. A brief and confusing reasoning was considered to be improper by the Romanian Supreme Court of Justice 11 (currently the High Court of Cassation and Justice). The judge(s) is bound to explain in writing the reasons why a certain solution has been chosen, its attitude towards parties contentions and the evidence submitted or the reasons why a certain legal norm has been applied or a certain interpretation has been preferred 12. However, there is 1 Codul de Procedura Civila 1865 (Code of Civil Procedure of Romania, as amended up to and including 2006), art See Mihaela Tabarca and Gheorghe Buta, Codul de Procedura Civila Comentat si adnotat cu legislatie, jurisprudenta si doctrina (Universul Juridic, Bucharest 2007) Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art ibid. 5 Maria Fodor, Drept Procesual Civil, (2 nd vol Universul Juridic, Bucharest 2007) ibid. 7 ibid, Tabarca and Buta (n2) Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art ibid. 10 Tabarca and Buta (n2) CSJ, sectia de contencios administrativ, decizia no. 723/2000, 3 Dreptul 2001, 162 (Romanian Supreme Court of Justice). 12 Tabarca and Buta (n2)

6 no obligation to address all the arguments invoked by the parties. It is sufficient that such arguments have been implicitly addressed by the judgment in its entirety 13. Finally, the decision/dictum ( dispozitiv ) arrived at by the court; In addition, Romanian judgments have to contain two additional elements, namely the ways pf appeal and the term in which an appeal may be lodged, as well as reference to the fact that the judgment has been pronounced in public session and the signatures of the judges and of the court s registrar. Example of judgment issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice 14 : Motivarea hotărârii judecătoreşti. Răspunsul judecătorului la fiecare argument invocat de părţi poate fi şi implicit. Codul de procedură civilă, art. 261 alin. (1) pct.5 În conformitate cu dispoziţiile art. 261 alin.(1) pct. 5 din Codul de procedură civilă, hotărârea se dă în numele legii şi va cuprinde motivele de fapt şi de drept care au format convingerea instanţei, cum şi cele pentru care s-au înlăturat cererile părţilor. Condiţiile procedurale privind motivarea hotărârii sunt îndeplinite chiar dacă nu s-a răspuns expres fiecărui argument invocat de părţi, fiind suficient ca din întregul hotărârii să rezulte că s-a răspuns tuturor argumentelor în mod implicit, prin raţionamente logice. Î.C.C.J., Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, Decizia nr din 29 iunie 2006 Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Secţia a VIII-a Contencios Administrativ şi Fiscal judecând cauza în fond după casare, prin sentinţa civilă nr.2013 din 30 noiembrie 2005, a admis acţiunea formulată de reclamanta S.C. MTC S.R.L., a anulat punctul nr.2 din dispozitivul deciziei nr.408/17 iulie 2002, emisă de Ministerul Finanţelor Publice, privind obligarea reclamantei la plata sumei de ROL, reprezentând majorări de întârziere şi a anulat procesul verbal de control nr.981/20 mai Pentru a pronunţa această soluţie, instanţa a reţinut în esenţă, că reclamanta nu a procedat la recalcularea impozitului pe profit, datorat pentru contractul de leasing nr. Mal iunie 1999 şi nici nu a înregistrat în luna februarie 2002 în contul contabil 602, diferenţe de rectificare /stornare de cheltuieli aferente acestui contract de leasing, aşa cum au arătat autorităţile fiscale în actele administrative contestate. Considerentele reţinute de instanţă au rezultat din balanţa contabilă întocmită de reclamantă la 28 februarie 2002 şi din concluziile raportului de expertiză efectuat în cauză, potrivit art.315 alin.1 Cod procedură civilă, 13 ICCJ, sectia de contencios administrative si fiscal, decizia no. 2522/2006, 4 Dreptul 2007, 244 (Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice). 14 ibid. 6

7 conform celor stabilite prin decizia nr.353/25 ianuarie 2005 a Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie Secţia contencios administrativ şi fiscal. Împotriva acestei hotărâri au declarat recurs pârâţii, criticând-o pentru nelegalitate şi netemeinicie. În motivarea recursului său, recurenta-pârâtă Garda Financiară Comisariatul General a arătat că sentinţa atacată a fost pronunţată cu încălcarea prevederilor art.261 alin.5, în sensul că instanţa de fond nu a menţionat motivele de fapt şi de drept care i-au format convingerea şi nu s-a pronunţat asupra unor dovezi hotărâtoare, situaţie care face imposibilă exercitarea controlului judiciar. De asemenea, recurenta-pârâtă a arătat că sentinţa a fost pronunţată cu aplicarea şi interpretarea greşită a legii şi a probelor administrate în cauză. În acest sens, recurenta-pârâtă a arătat că în faza procedurii administrative prevăzute de O.U.G. 13/2001, intimata-reclamantă nu a invocat argumente de fond privind nelegalitatea stabilirii majorărilor de întârziere în sumă de ROL, singurul motiv de anulare a procesului-verbal de control fiind încălcarea art.19 alin.2 din O.G. 70/1997 de către organul de control. Susţinerile făcute pentru prima dată în faţa primei instanţe nu puteau fi luate în considerare, întrucât legalitatea deciziei de respingere a contestaţiei se analizează numai în funcţie de motivele şi argumentele prezentate în baza procedurii administrative prealabile. În fapt, a arătat recurenta-pârâtă, intimata-reclamată a înregistrat eronat pe cheltuieli deductibile la calculul profitului impozabil contravaloarea ratelor de leasing aferente contractului nr. MAL nr. 040/15 iunie 1999, considerându-l leasing operaţional, iar în luna februarie 2002 a procedat la recalcularea impozitului pe profit, prin reconsiderarea contractului ca fiind de leasing financiar. Pentru suma de lei, rezultată în plus ca urmare a recalculării impozitului pe profit în luna februarie 2002, intimata reclamantă a depus la organul fiscal teritorial cererea de compensare cu TVA de rambursat nr.1080/30 aprilie 2002, iar majorările de întârziere în sumă de ROL au fost calculate pentru perioada în care impozitul pe profit a fost diminuat. Recurenta-pârâtă a mai arătat că instanţa trebuia să înlăture concluziile raportului de expertiză contabilă, întrucât expertul a avut în vedere date consemnate în evidenţa financiar-contabilă după data încheierii procesuluiverbal de control din 20 mai 2002, ceea ce duce la concluzia că la data efectuării controlului, evidenţa financiarcontabilă nu era întocmită la zi. În ceea ce priveşte constatarea instanţei, că procesul-verbal de control a fost încheiat cu încălcarea art.19 alin.2 din O.G. 70/1997, în sensul că perioada în care s-a derulat contractul de leasing a mai fost verificată de Administraţia Finanţelor Publice Sector 3, recurenta-pârâtă a arătat că este eronată, întrucât controlul Gărzii Financiare a vizat o altă perioadă de timp decât cea consemnată în actul de control al organului fiscal teritorial şi anume dacă în luna februarie 2002 a fost calculat corect impozitul pe profit. În motivarea recursului pe care l-a formulat, recurenta-pârâtă Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală a invocat prevederile art.304 pct.9 Cod procedură civilă, arătând că în temeiul prevederilor O.G. nr.51/28.august 1997, republicată, privind operaţiunile de leasing şi societăţile de leasing, aprobată prin Legea nr.90/1999 şi ale O.M.F. nr.686/1999, pentru aprobarea normelor privind înregistrările operaţiunilor de leasing, în cazul leasingului financiar, astfel cum a fost calificat contractul nr. MAL 040/1999, reprezintă cheltuieli deductibile la stabilirea impozitului pe profit doar cota de amortizare calculată conform prevederilor legale şi dobânda aferentă derulării contractului de leasing. Pe de altă parte, recurenta-pârâtă a arătat că în speţă nu sunt incidente prevederile art.19 alin.2 din O.U.G. nr.70/1997 privind controlul fiscal, pentru că intimata-reclamantă nu a adus nici un argument din care să rezulte că 7

8 impozitul pe profit aferent lunii februarie 2002 a fost verificat anterior, iar alte motive de nelegalitate nu au fost invocate în contestaţie, conform art.3 alin.1 lit.c din O.U.G. 13/2001. Examinând cauza în raport de motivele de recurs invocate şi de prevederile art Cod procedură civilă, ţinând seama de înscrisurile depuse la dosarul de fond şi de prevederile legale aplicabile în cauză, Curtea constată că recursurile nu sunt fondate. Sentinţa atacată cuprinde motivele de fapt şi de drept care au format convingerea instanţei, precum şi cele pentru care s-au înlăturat argumentele pârâtelor, conform art.261 alin.1 pct.5 Cod procedură civilă. Judecătorul nu este obligat să răspundă în mod expres fiecărui argument invocat de părţi, fiind suficient ca din întregul hotărârii să rezulte că a răspuns tuturor argumentelor în mod implicit, prin raţionamente logice. În consecinţă, Curtea constată neîntemeiată critica vizând nemotivarea sentinţei, încadrată în prevederile art.304 pct.7 Cod procedură civilă, cuprinsă în recursul Gărzii Financiare Comisariatul General. Potrivit art.315 alin.1 Cod procedură civilă, în caz de casare, hotărârile instanţei de recurs asupra problemelor de drept dezlegate, precum şi asupra necesităţii administrării unor probe sunt obligatorii pentru judecătorii fondului. Obiectivele expertizei contabile efectuate în cauză au fost stabilite conform indicaţiilor cuprinse în decizia de casare nr.353/25 iunie 2005 a Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie Secţia de Contencios Administrativ şi Fiscal, iar la soluţionarea cauzei a fost avut în vedere şi răspunsul la obiecţiunile formulate de intimata-pârâtă Garda Financiară Centrală. În procesul-verbal nr.991 încheiat la data de 20 mai 2002, organul de control a reţinut că în luna februarie 2002, societatea reclamantă a reconsiderat contractul de leasing nr. MAL 040, procedând la recalcularea impozitului pe profit, dar această afirmaţie, reluată şi în cererile de recurs, nu este susţinută de nici unul dintre înscrisurile depuse la dosar şi este infirmată de concluziile raportului de expertiză contabilă întocmit pe baza verificării documentelor şi evidenţelor de specialitate, conform art.201 alin.1 Cod procedură civilă. Recurentele pârâte au făcut referire la o cerere de compensare a impozitului pe profit stabilit în plus cu TVA de rambursat (cererea nr.1080/30 aprilie 2002 ), dar nu au depus această cerere la dosar, pentru a se verifica dacă există vreo legătură între suma pentru care s-ar fi solicitat compensarea şi pretinsa sumă stabilită în plus cu titlu de impozit pe profit în urma unei reconsiderări a contractului de leasing nr.mal 040/15 iunie 1999, reconsiderare care s-ar fi făcut din iniţiativa intimatei-reclamante şi care ar fi putut fi interpretată drept o împrejurare nouă care să justifice controlul. Potrivit art.19 alin.1 din O.G. 70/1997, aprobată prin Legea 64/1999, privind controlul fiscal, în vigoare în perioada supusă analizei, controlul fiscal se efectua o singură dată, pentru fiecare impozit şi pentru fiecare perioadă supusă impozitării. Alineatul 2 al aceluiaşi articol prevedea, prin excepţie de la alineatul 1, că reverificarea unei anumite perioade era permisă dacă de la data încheierii controlului fiscal şi până la împlinirea termenului de prescripţie apăreau date suplimentare, necunoscute organului de control fiscal la data efectuării controlului, de natură să influenţeze sau să modifice rezultatele acestuia. În procesul verbal nr.991/20 mai 2002 se prevede expres că obiectivul controlului îl constituie verificarea derulării, evidenţierii şi înregistrării în contabilitate a contractelor de leasing nr. AFIVPRO/112/1998 şi MAL 040/15 iunie 1999 şi nicidecum verificarea impozitului pe profit pe luna februarie 2002, aşa cum se susţine în cererile de recurs, majorările de întârziere fiind calculate pentru perioada derulării contractului. 8

9 Modul de calcul al impozitului pe profit şi legalitatea înregistrărilor efectuate în contabilitate cu privire la contractul de leasing în discuţie mai fuseseră însă verificate, prin procesele verbale depuse la dosarul de fond, astfel încât organul de control fiscal nu mai putea proceda, din oficiu, la recalificarea naturii contractului de leasing. În aceste condiţii, instanţa de fond a reţinut în mod corect încălcarea prevederilor art.19 din O.G. 70/1997, întrucât nu s-a făcut dovada existenţei unor date suplimentare pentru perioada deja controlată. Susţinerile reclamantei, privind inexistenţa unei recalculări a impozitului pe profit în luna februarie 2002, ca efect al reconsiderării contractului de leasing nr. MAL nr.040/15 iunie 1999, nu sunt motive noi de nelegalitate cu privire la actele administrativ fiscale, neinvocate în contestaţia administrativă, ci argumente în sprijinul ideii că procesul-verbal de control atacat a fost întocmit fără să existe date suplimentare ulterioare controalelor deja efectuate, în sensul art.19 alin.2 din O.G. 70/1997. În raport de aceste considerente, Curtea constată că sentinţa instanţei de fond a fost pronunţată cu interpretarea corectă a probelor administrative în cauză şi cu aplicarea corespunzătoare a prevederilor legale invocate, neexistând motive de modificare sau casare a hotărârii, conform art.304 pct.9 sau Cod procedură civilă, astfel încât recursurile au fost respinse ca nefondate. B. The final determination and findings on issues of fact and law How does the court's determination of a matter in your legal system relate to the findings on issues of fact and law on which this determination is based? As stated under question A above, a judgment issued by a Romanian court will essentially contain three parts: general information which will enable the identification of a case, the reasoning and, finally, the decision itself. The reasoning will contain findings of fact and law that will allow the court to reach a certain decision, admitting certain claim(s) and rejecting others 15. Under the Romanian legal system, this distinction is based on law (article 261 Code of Civil Procedure). Such findings of fact and law, as included in the reasoning of the court, are strictly related to the decision arrived at in the third part of the judgment (dictum) 16. Accordingly, a logical flow has to exist between the findings of fact and law enshrined in the reasoning and the decision rendered by the court. If the dictum is not based on the reasoning or, an even more serious flaw, the dictum contradicts the reasoning, than such judgment can be considered without reasoning and, as a result, be annulled 17. Appeal courts may review such findings of fact and law as established by the lower court 18. This, however, will be done only within the limits of the request of appeal. On the other hand, appeals in cassation may be directed only against the dictum of the judgment 19. Nevertheless, in trying such requests the court may review the findings of fact and law in order to interpret the dictum 20. C. The binding character of a judgment Please describe the prerequisites for a judgment to have binding character so as to be capable of having preclusive effects in your legal system. 15 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art Fodor (n5) ICCJ, sectia comerciala, decizia no. 963/2005, cited on accessed 11 December 2007 (Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice). 18 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art There is an exception to this rule, where the appeal in cassation is grounded on the lack of or inconsistent reasoning. Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 304(7). 20 Fodor (n5)

10 A judgment issued by a Romanian court has to contain all the elements mentioned above under question A. Failure to contain one or more of such elements may trigger the nullity of the judgment in question 21. In other words, in order to have binding effects, a Romanian judgment has to comply with the formal legal requirements. However, it should be mentioned that if a judgment does not comply with such requirement its nullity is not ex officio and may be pronounced if the judgment in question has caused a procedural prejudice to a party that may be remedied only by declaring such judgment null 22. In addition, in order to be valid (i.e. able to withstand an attack in the form of a request for relief from judgment) the court rendering such judgment in first instance has to have subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, has to try the case on its merits and, in case of a judgment rendered in default of appearance, to have issued proper notice to the defaulting defendant. While the first two requirements would trigger the annulment of the judgment in appeal, the latter would lead to its setting aside 23. As long as no appeal has been lodged, a judgment issued by a Romanian court, even if not yet final (i.e. which may be subject to appeal proceedings), has res judicata effects ( putere de lucru judecat ) and, hence, binding character 24. One of the consequences of lodging an appeal is suspension of execution of the challenged judgment 25. However, until such time as the judgment is reversed, it maintains its binding character. If, as a result of an attack on the judgment in the form of an appeal, it is being set aside or annulled, the judgment in question will loose its res judicata effects and, hence, its binding character. As a consequence, it can be contended that Romanian judgments on the merits have temporary res judicata effects as soon as they are rendered, status which can be consolidated or, on the contrary, reversed after possible appeal proceedings. In the situation where a party fails to invoke the res judicata exception in a subsequent procedure on the same cause of action and between the same parties, or even if invoked such exception has not been debated during trail, then the risk exists that inconsistent judgments will be rendered. In such cases Romanian law 26 allows for an extraordinary way of appeal called motion to alter ( revizuire ) whereby the higher court will be seized with this matter. This way of appeal may succeed only if the request for annulment concerns the second rendered judgment in time 27. Where a judgment is based on the binding character of another judgment and the latter has been either annulled or altered, a motion to alter the second judgment may be lodged with the Romanian court that rendered such judgment 28. The motion to alter has to be lodged within one month after the first judgment has been either annulled or altered and may result either in the annulment or modification of the second judgment. D. Judgments that are capable of having preclusive effects Please identify and describe (1) the types and characteristics of judgments in your legal system that are capable of having preclusive effect and (2) any types of judgments that are not capable of having preclusive effects. In addition to the distinction made above under question A, between judgments issued by courts of first instance on the merits ( sentinte ), those issued in appeal or appeal in cassation ( decizii ) and other types of judgments, such as for instance procedural orders ( incheieri ), there are a number of categories of judgments that should be mentioned in this context. With regard to sentinte, they would entail preclusive effects when they are rendered. However, such effects are temporary and could be either reversed in appeal or consolidated should appeal proceedings be not successful or in case the term for lodging an appeal has expired. Decizii are final judgments that have preclusive effects. Finally, incheieri would have preclusive effects as to the matter settled by the court in such acts, for instance where a party is ordered to submit certain documents. Another distinction relevant in this context is that between provisional and definitive judgments 29. While the former are temporary measures taken in urgent situations, the latter are judgments on the merits of the case. Definitive judgments will have preclusive effects even if an appeal can still be lodged. As stated above, in this case the preclusive effects have a temporary character, and may be consolidated if no appeal is lodged within the legal term or if the initial judgment is upheld as a result of such appeal. Provisional judgments, such as presidential ordinances ( ordonanta prezidentiala ) rendered base on article 581 Code of Civil Procedure do not have preclusive effects 21 Tabarca and Buta (n2) Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 105(2). 23 ibid, art Fodor (n5) The literatures agrees that as long as the term for lodging an appeal has not expired the execution of the judgment is suspended (Fodor (n5) 436, Tabarca and Buta (n2) 1209). An appeal in cassation has such effects only in exceptional circumstances. 26 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 322(7). 27 Fodor (n5) Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 322(5). 29 Fodor (n5)

11 with regard to the trial on the merits of the case or with regard to another provisional judgment, in case the factual situation that justified such a measure has been changed 30. A further distinction is being made in the Code of Civil Procedure between partial and entire judgments. Accordingly, based on article 270 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the defendant accepts part of the claim(s), the courts may render a partial judgment recording such acceptance. Such partial judgments cannot be challenged in appeal proceedings 31. They can be attacked only with an appeal in cassation. However, this detail does not influence their preclusive effects, which begins to run for both types of judgments from the moment they are rendered. Yet another distinction may be made between final and not final judgments, as well as judgments that are irrevocable 32. Final judgments are those rendered in appeal or those rendered by the courts of first instance against which no appeal has been lodged or such has not been successful. Judgments rendered by courts of first instance are not yet final, unless no appeal is open for such judgments. Irrevocable judgments are those rendered either by courts of first instance or in appeal for which an appeal in cassation is no longer available, as well as judgments given as a result of an appeal in cassation. This distinction, however, does not have an influence on the res judicata status of such judgment. As stated above under question C, Romanian judgments on the merits will have res judicata status, and hence preclusive effects, from the moment they are rendered. If such a judgment is not yet final, this status will either be consolidated after appeal proceedings or in case such appeal has not been lodged and the term has expired, or reversed if the appeal is successful. Finally, in the Romanian legal literature a further distinction is being made between condemnatory judgments, where the defendant is ordered to do something, declaratory judgments, confirming or denying a legal status and constitutive judgments, creating, altering or ending a certain legal status 33. While this distinction has influence on whether a judgment is feasible for execution or not (declaratory judgments being feasible only for recognition), or on whether a judgment has retroactive effects (constitutive judgments having effects only for the future) 34, all such judgments are capable of having preclusive effects. 30 Tabarca and Buta (n2) ibid, Fodor (n5) 383, Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art A Nicolae, Aspecte privind efectele substantiale ale hotararii judecatoresti 2 Revista romana de drept privat 2007, Fodor (n5)

12 I. Preclusive effects This part of the questionnaire is concerned with the effects of a judgment (including, for this purpose, any statement of the reasons given for a judgment) insofar as it restricts the ability of the participants in the proceedings in which it was given, or related or non-related persons, to bring or conduct later proceedings (whether or not forming part of the same action) as they would wish. In particular, this section is concerned with so-called rules of "res judicata" or their equivalent. References to "Claimant" are to the person seeking a remedy from the court, and references to "Defendant" are to the person against whom a remedy is sought. 35 The terminology used in this intended for guidance only and is not intended to exclude or restrict discussion of the legal concepts and terms which are relevant to your legal system. This section is not concerned with the evidential status of the record of judgment, nor with the value of judgments as a legal precedent for future cases (stare decisis), both of which fall outside the scope of this Project. For the purpose of drafting the questionnaire, a distinction has been drawn between "claim preclusive effects" (see Part II.A) and "issue preclusive effects" (see Part II.B). These are intended to be descriptive categories, the former (which might also be described as "same claim preclusion") embracing rules of preclusion affecting the raising of claims which a legal system considers to have been determined in earlier proceedings and the latter embracing rules of preclusion affecting attempts to re-open issues of law or fact which a legal system regards as having already been determined in earlier proceedings. A third category of "wider preclusive effects" has been used (see Part II.C) to accommodate rules of preclusion which are considered to fall into neither of these categories. Those co-ordinating the Project recognise, however, that different legal systems will approach the categorisation differently depending on how they define the concepts of claim and issue, and that terminology will vary (e.g. in England, reference is made to "cause of action estoppel", "issue estoppel" and to various other rules, including "abuse of process"). Rapporteurs are thus encouraged to be flexible and to fit their description of the law and practice of their legal system into the framework established below as they think most appropriate. A. Claim preclusion 1. Existence and nature of claim preclusive effects Are judgments in your legal system capable of having claim preclusive effects? Romanian judgments, even if not yet final (i.e. may be subject to appeal) have res judicata status. According to article 1201 Civil Code, the status of res judicata presupposes that a second claim based on the same cause of action, having the same object and between the same parties would be precluded. In other words, Romanian judgments have substantive claim preclusive effects. Such effects are produced when the judgment is rendered 36. As stated above, finality is not a condition for such. 2. Policies underlying claim preclusive effects What are the policy considerations for the claim preclusive effect of judgments in your legal system? The res judicata effects of judgments under the Romanian legal system are not expressly regulated by law 37. However, based on two legislative provisions dealing with the definition of res judicata (art Civil Code) and the res judicata exception of article 166 Code of Civil Procedure, the opinion expressed in the literature 38 is that the policy considerations for granting res judicata effects to judgments are in fact that a claim can be finally settled only once ( bis de eadem re ne sit actio ) and the solution contained in a judgment is presumed to express the truth and should not be contradicted in another judgment ( res judicata pro veritate habetur ). 35 Thus, for example, a person named as Defendant in legal proceedings who advances a counterclaim should be treated as "Defendant" for the purposes of the main claim against him (including, for example, any true defence of set-off) and "Claimant" for the purposes of the counterclaim. 36 Fodor (n5) ibid, See Viorel Mihai Ciobanu, Tratat teoretic si practic de procedura civila. Teorie generala,,(2 nd vol National, Bucharest 1997), , Mihaela Tabarca, Drept Procesual Civil, (Global Lex, Bucharest 2005),

13 In this context, these legislative provisions should be cited. Accordingly, article 1201 Civil Code 39 reads as following: Este lucru judecat atunci cand a doua cerere in judecata are acelasi obiect, este intemeiata pe acceasi cauza si este intre aceleasi parti, facuta de ele si in contra lor in aceeasi calitate. Res judicata is where the second claim has the same object, is based on the same cause of action and is between the same parties, done by them and against them in the same capacity. (translation by the author) Article 166 Code of Civil Procedure reads as following: Exceptia puterii lucrului judecat se poate ridica, de parti sau de judecator, chiar inaintea instantelor de recurs. The res judicata exception may be raised by the parties or by the judge, even before the appeal courts. (translation by the author) 3. Conditions for claim preclusive effects What are the conditions for the claim preclusive effects of a judgment? Under Romanian law, three distinct elements are required in order to invoke the preclusive effects of a previous judgments 40 : Same object (obiect); Same cause of action (cauza); Same parties (parti). On the first element, the need for a similar object (claim), Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie (the High Court of Cassation and Justice) was of the opinion that for the res judicata exception to be successful it is sufficient that the claims have similar in concreto objective 41. It is therefore not necessary that the claims should be similarly formulated 42. As to the second element, the same cause of action, it is necessary that both claims have the same legal basis. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal Iasi 43 rejected the res judicata exception since the first claim was based on a statutory provision (Law 18/1991 on the restitution of land), while the second claim was based on a contractual provision. With regard to the identity of parties, the exception would succeed if here is legal identity of the parties. This element is therefore not concerning the physical identity of parties. In other words, if a party participated in legal proceedings on its own name but through representative, it will be prevented from litigating again by the res judicata exception, even if it did not physically participate in such proceedings. 44 Even though some authors are of the opinion that such identity exists as long as the parties have the same procedural role (Claimant or Defendant) the ICCJ 45 was of the opinion that such identity exists even where the parties exchange their procedural roles in the second proceedings. It could be therefore concluded that, perhaps with the exception of the cause of action element, the Romanian judiciary chooses for a rather broad interpretation of these elements, being willing to grant such preclusive effects even where the claims are not similarly formulated or when the parties have different procedural roles. 39 Codul Civil 1865 (Civil Code of Romania, as amended up to and including 2006), art CA Craiova, decizia no. 141/2007, < > accessed 18 December 2007 (Court of Appeal Craiova). 41 CA Tomisoara, decizia no. 289/2007, < > accessed 18 December 2007 (Court of Appeal Timisoara). 42 ICCJ, sectia civila si de proprietate intelectuala, decizia no. 4525/2005, Jurisprudenta Sectiei civile pe anul 2005, 533 (Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice). 43 CA Iasi, decizie civila no. 1960/1999, Jurisprudenta pe anul 1999, 187 (Court of Appeal Iasi). 44 CA Bucharest, sectia a IV-a civila, decizia no. 1056/2001, not published, as cited in Tabarca and Buta (n2) 532 (Court of Appeal Bucharest). 45 ICCJ, sectia civila si de proprietate intelectuala, decizia no. 4525/2005, Jurisprudenta Sectiei civile pe anul 2005, 533 (Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice).. 13

14 Under Romanian law the res judicata exception is considered a substantive exception, having a pre-emptory nature because it generally leads to the rejection of the claim. It is also an absolute exception since it is regulated by mandatory law 46. Claiming such exception and thus the preclusive effects of a previous judgment can occur at any stage during proceedings, even in appeal or appeal in cassation, without regard to the grounds for appeal. 4. Invoking claim preclusive effects Please describe how the claim preclusive effects of a judgment are invoked in your legal system. If the case is that the unsuccessful Claimant in a former trial will bring fresh proceedings having essentially the same claim, based on the same cause of action and against the same Defendant, either the judge ex officio or the interested party may raise the res judicata exception at any stage during proceedings, even during appeal proceedings 47. Such exception may be brought in the form of an interlocutory motion for relief. The party raising such exception will also bear the burden of proof to show that the elements mentioned above under the previous question have been met. If justified, the exception will lead to the rejection of the claim. Such rejection will be made in the form a judgment. In such cases, where the claim is rejected because of the preclusive effects of a previous judgment, the court will not require evidence on the substantive validity of the second claim and is not even required to analyse the evidence submitted on the merits 48. Finally, depending on the court issuing such judgment, it may be subject to appeal or to an appeal in cassation. 5. Exceptions to claim preclusive effects Please verify whether the claim preclusive effect of judgments in your legal system is subject to generally accepted exceptions. Under certain specific circumstances, expressly stipulated by law 49, judgments entailing preclusive effects may be challenged. Accordingly, the Code of Civil Procedure contains in article 317 rules with regard to the motion for annulment of judgment ( contestatia in anulare ) as an extraordinary way of appeal against final and irrevocable judgments. The parties to the initial litigation, including the interveners, or the legal successors of such, may lodge such a motion with the court that rendered the irrevocable judgment based on one of the following grounds: (i) where one of the parties has not been adequately served with process; (ii) where the public policy rules on courts jurisdiction, in other words the rules on exclusive jurisdiction, have been infringed upon 50. It should be mentioned that this extraordinary way of appeal may be used only if these matters have not been raised in appeal or in appeal in cassation. Moreover, if the party that raised such grounds for annulment could have done so in one of the ordinary ways of appeal and failed to do so the motion will be rejected. In other words, this procedural escape under Romanian law does not allow parties to choose between ordinary and extraordinary ways of appeal 51. However, article 317(2) Code of Civil Procedure contains an exception to this requirement, where even though one or both these grounds have been raised in appeal proceedings, the court was not in the position to analyse them because it needed a factual analysis or where the appeal in cassation has been rejected without a trial on the merits. Yet another way of extraordinary appeal that may affect the preclusive effect of judgments is the motion to alter the judgment ( revizuirea ) 52. Accordingly, the parties to the litigation or the public prosecutor may initiate these proceedings against final or irrevocable judgments. Such proceedings may lead to either the revision of the challenged judgment or to its annulment, thereby affecting its preclusive effects. If, after the initial judgment has become final or irrevocable, new circumstances appear or certain important circumstances unknown at the date of judgment are brought to the knowledge of the parties or of the public prosecutor, such a motion may be lodged with the competent court. In addition, if the initial judgment involved certain elements of fraud which altered judges opinion on certain factual elements 53, then such a motion may be 46 Tabarca and Buta (n2) Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art CA Cluj, sectia civila, decizia no. 361/1999, Buletinul Jurisprudentei 1999, 198 (Court of Appeal Cluj). 49 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art Tabarca and Buta (n2) 911, Fodor (n5) Tabarca and Buta (n2) Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art Fodor (n5)

15 lodged. Article 322 Code of Civil Procedure contains an exhaustive list of nine reasons that can justify such procedure: Where the dictum of the judgment contains contradictory provisions or provisions that cannot be executed; Where the judgment is ultra or infra petita; Where the object of the claim does not exist; Where a judge, witness or expert that participated in the initial proceedings has committed a felony related to the judgement in question for which he or she has been convicted through a final judgment, or if the judge has fulfilled his duties in such case with bad faith or gross negligence; Where written evidence not available during the initial trial has come to light or where the judgment based on which the judgment which is subject to the motion to alter has been rendered has been, in its turn, modified or annulled; Where the state or a public entity, as well as persons that have been declared disappeared or are under guardianship have not had a proper defence during trail; Where inconsistent final judgments have been rendered in one or more matters, between the same persons acting in the same procedural role; Where a party has been prevented to appear before the court and to inform the court of such circumstances; Where the European Court of Human Rights has identified an infringement of human right or fundamental freedoms as a result of a judgment and such grave consequences continue to occur and can only be remedied through amendment of such judgment. It should be noted that while the motion for annulment or the motion to alter are pending the initial judgment retains its res judicata effects (article 379 Code of Civil procedure). 15

16 In the previous section, the Questionnaire addressed general aspects of claim preclusive effects of judgments. The following numbered points address particular questions that may arise in relation to the operation of the claim preclusive effects of judgments in particular circumstances which may be subject to specific rules and conditions. It is appreciated that some of the issues you have addressed in the more general answers in the previous section will be involved when you consider these specific situations. Therefore, it is important that you provide an insight in this section into the particularities, if any, of the application of claim preclusion in the circumstances as described. 6. Claimant and Defendant May a Claimant or Defendant in your legal system be prevented by judgment on a particular claim from bringing or defending fresh proceedings against the Defendant or Claimant based on what is considered in your legal system to be the same claim? As specified above under question II.A.2, based on two legislative provisions dealing with the definition of res judicata ( putere de lucru judecat - art Civil Code) and the procedural character of the res judicata exception ( exceptia puterii lucrului judecat ) article 166 Code of Civil Procedure) the opinion expressed in the literature 54 is that granting res judicata effects to judgments means in fact that a claim can be finally settled only once and the solution contained in a judgment is presumed to express the truth and should not be contradicted in another judgment. Based on the above, the following may be inferred: even though under the Romanian legal system the res judicata effects of judgments are not expressly regulated by law, it is generally recognized that judgments entail such effects. However, the successful or unsuccessful Claimant, as well as the unsuccessful Defendant may, in principle, bring fresh proceedings on the same claim against the same Defendant (Claimant). In the framework of such new proceedings either the judge ex officio or the interested party may raise the res judicata exception at any stage during the process, even during appeal proceedings. If justified, the exception will lead to the rejection of the claim. Under Romanian law the res judicata exception is considered a substantive exception, having a pre-emptory nature because it normally leads to the rejection of the claim. It is also an absolute exception since it is regulated by mandatory law 55. The application of the preclusive effect towards Claimant or Defendant is subject to the exception listed above under question II.A.5. As explained in detail above under question II.A.3, in order for this exception to be successful, three elements have to be present: same object, same cause of action and same parties. In other words, in principle it is possible for Claimant or Defendant to open new proceedings against the same party on the same cause of action. However, at any point during proceedings, even in appeal, either the judge ex officio or the interested party may raise the exception of res judicata. Provided that the object (claim) is similar, that it is based on the same cause of action and that the same parties are involved in the proceedings, even in a different procedural role, the second claim will be rejected. As a consequence, if the Claimant were to bring fresh proceedings against the same Defendant on the same claim and on a similar legal ground (cause of action), while in the first proceedings an appeal is pending, either the judge of its own motion or the interested party (in this case the Defendant) may raise the res judicata exception and the second claim will most probably be rejected. It would be recalled that under Romanian law even judgments that are not final (i.e. are subject to appeal) have preclusive (res judicata) effects. However, if the second claim were to have a different object (for instance where the first claim regards lost wages from January to June while the second covers the period July-December), then raising the res judicata exception in the second proceedings will most probably be unsuccessful since there is no identity of the three elements needed for such to succeed: object, cause of action and parties. 7. Other participants To what extent, if at all, do the claim preclusive effects of judgments extend to other participants in the litigation? 54 Ciobanu (n38) , Tabarca (n38) Tabarca and Buta (n2)