Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 Strner; Ms Mona Vaswani; Professor Rhonda Wasserman; Professor Mathijs ten Wolde Project National Rapporteurs: Professor Alegra Borrs (Spain); Mr Andrew Dickinson (England and Wales); Ms Esther Rivera (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: Edward Ho Aniket Mandevia Floor Rombach Daniel Vasbeck
REPORT
The Effect in the European Community of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: Recognition, Res Judicata and Abuse of Process
Romania
Dr Norel Rosner Levantplein 80 1019 MB Amsterdam
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.................................................................................... 10 D. Judgments that are capable of having preclusive effects ..................................................... 11
II.
A.
B.
Issue preclusion................................................................................................................. 20
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The existence and nature of issue preclusive effects ................................................................................20 Policies underlying issue preclusive effects .............................................................................................21 Conditions for issue preclusive effects .....................................................................................................21 Invoking issue preclusive effects..............................................................................................................21 Exceptions to issue preclusive effects ......................................................................................................21 Claimant and Defendant ...........................................................................................................................22 Other participants .....................................................................................................................................22 Represented persons .................................................................................................................................22 Persons connected to the Claimant, Defendant, and other participants ....................................................22 Strangers ..............................................................................................................................................22
C.
III.
A.
1. 2. 3. 4.
B.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
C.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Issue preclusion................................................................................................................. 32
Existence and nature of issue preclusive effects.......................................................................................32 Policies underlying issue preclusive effects .............................................................................................33 Law applicable to issue preclusive effects................................................................................................33 Conditions for issue preclusive effects .....................................................................................................33 Invoking issue preclusive effects..............................................................................................................33 Exceptions to issue preclusive effects ......................................................................................................34 Persons affected by issue preclusive effects .............................................................................................34
D. Wider preclusion (abuse of process/claims and issues that could or should have been raised)........................................................................................................................................ 34
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The existence and nature of wider preclusive effects ...............................................................................34 Policies underlying wider preclusive effects ............................................................................................35 The law applicable to wider preclusive effects.........................................................................................35 Conditions for wider preclusive effects ....................................................................................................35 Invoking wider preclusive effects.............................................................................................................35 Exceptions to wider preclusive effects .....................................................................................................35 Persons affected by wider preclusive effects ............................................................................................35
E.
IV.
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. Summary: There are three types of Romanian judgment: Sentinta, a judgment on the merits at first instance, Decizie, a judgment rendered on appeal, and Incheiere , a term which covers any other type of judgment. The term hotarare judecatoreasca is synonymous with the English term judgment i.e. a final determination of the dispute with res judicata effects. It is an umbrella term covering sentinta and decizie. A Romanian judgment consists of three main parts: Practica, which includes administrative details, as well as information as to the object of claim and the arguments and evidence used by the parties, Considerente, the reasoning of the Court, and Dispozitiv , the decision of the Court. Judgments must also contain the ways to appeal and the term in which an appeal may be lodged. Full Response: 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 judgment1. 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 decision5. 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 effects6, 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 parts7: 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 trail8;
Codul de Procedura Civila 1865 (Code of Civil Procedure of Romania, as amended up to and including 2006), art 255. See Mihaela Tabarca and Gheorghe Buta, Codul de Procedura Civila Comentat si adnotat cu legislatie, jurisprudenta si doctrina (Universul Juridic, Bucharest 2007) 683. 3 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 255. 4 ibid. 5 Maria Fodor, Drept Procesual Civil, (2nd vol Universul Juridic, Bucharest 2007) 381. 6 ibid. 7 ibid, Tabarca and Buta (n2) 702. 8 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 261.
2
A second part, called considerente or motivare would essentially consist of the factual and legal reasons that led to the courts 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 judgment10. A brief and confusing reasoning was considered to be improper by the Romanian Supreme Court of Justice11 (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 preferred12. However, there is 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 entirety13. 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 courts registrar.
Example of judgment issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice14: Motivarea hotrrii judectoreti. Rspunsul judectorului la fiecare argument invocat de pri poate fi i implicit.
n conformitate cu dispoziiile art. 261 alin.(1) pct. 5 din Codul de procedur civil, hotrrea se d n numele legii i va cuprinde motivele de fapt i de drept care au format convingerea instanei, cum i cele pentru care s-au nlturat cererile prilor. Condiiile procedurale privind motivarea hotrrii sunt ndeplinite chiar dac nu s-a rspuns expres fiecrui argument invocat de pri, fiind suficient ca din ntregul hotrrii s rezulte c s-a rspuns tuturor argumentelor n mod implicit, prin raionamente logice.
.C.C.J., Secia de contencios administrativ i fiscal, Decizia nr. 2522 din 29 iunie 2006
Curtea de Apel Bucureti - Secia a VIII-a Contencios Administrativ i Fiscal judecnd cauza n fond dup casare, prin sentina civil nr.2013 din 30 noiembrie 2005, a admis aciunea formulat de reclamanta S.C. MTC S.R.L., a anulat punctul nr.2 din dispozitivul deciziei nr.408/17 iulie 2002, emis de Ministerul Finanelor Publice, privind obligarea reclamantei la plata sumei de 54.794.848 ROL, reprezentnd majorri de ntrziere i a anulat procesul verbal de control nr.981/20 mai 2002.
ibid. Tabarca and Buta (n2) 702. CSJ, sectia de contencios administrativ, decizia no. 723/2000, 3 Dreptul 2001, 162 (Romanian Supreme Court of Justice). 12 Tabarca and Buta (n2) 702-703. 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.
10 11
Pentru a pronuna aceast soluie, instana a reinut n esen, c reclamanta nu a procedat la recalcularea impozitului pe profit, datorat pentru contractul de leasing nr. Mal 04015 iunie 1999 i nici nu a nregistrat n luna februarie 2002 n contul contabil 602, diferene de rectificare /stornare de cheltuieli aferente acestui contract de leasing, aa cum au artat autoritile fiscale n actele administrative contestate. Considerentele reinute de instan au rezultat din balana contabil ntocmit de reclamant la 28 februarie 2002 i din concluziile raportului de expertiz efectuat n cauz, potrivit art.315 alin.1 Cod procedur civil, conform celor stabilite prin decizia nr.353/25 ianuarie 2005 a naltei Curi de Casaie i Justiie Secia contencios administrativ i fiscal. mpotriva acestei hotrri au declarat recurs prii, criticnd-o pentru nelegalitate i netemeinicie. n motivarea recursului su, recurenta-prt Garda Financiar Comisariatul General a artat c sentina atacat a fost pronunat cu nclcarea prevederilor art.261 alin.5, n sensul c instana de fond nu a menionat motivele de fapt i de drept care i-au format convingerea i nu s-a pronunat asupra unor dovezi hotrtoare, situaie care face imposibil exercitarea controlului judiciar. De asemenea, recurenta-prt a artat c sentina a fost pronunat cu aplicarea i interpretarea greit a legii i a probelor administrate n cauz. n acest sens, recurenta-prt a artat c n faza procedurii administrative prevzute de O.U.G. 13/2001, intimata-reclamant nu a invocat argumente de fond privind nelegalitatea stabilirii majorrilor de ntrziere n sum de 54.794.848 ROL, singurul motiv de anulare a procesului-verbal de control fiind nclcarea art.19 alin.2 din O.G. 70/1997 de ctre organul de control. Susinerile fcute pentru prima dat n faa primei instane nu puteau fi luate n considerare, ntruct legalitatea deciziei de respingere a contestaiei se analizeaz numai n funcie de motivele i argumentele prezentate n baza procedurii administrative prealabile. n fapt, a artat recurenta-prt, intimata-reclamat a nregistrat eronat pe cheltuieli deductibile la calculul profitului impozabil contravaloarea ratelor de leasing aferente contractului nr. MAL nr. 040/15 iunie 1999, considerndu-l leasing operaional, iar n luna februarie 2002 a procedat la recalcularea impozitului pe profit, prin reconsiderarea contractului ca fiind de leasing financiar. Pentru suma de 29. 509.478 lei, rezultat n plus ca urmare a recalculrii impozitului pe profit n luna februarie 2002, intimatareclamant a depus la organul fiscal teritorial cererea de compensare cu TVA de rambursat nr.1080/30 aprilie 2002, iar majorrile de ntrziere n sum de 54.794.848 ROL au fost calculate pentru perioada n care impozitul pe profit a fost diminuat. Recurenta-prt a mai artat c instana trebuia s nlture concluziile raportului de expertiz contabil, ntruct expertul a avut n vedere date consemnate n evidena financiar-contabil dup data ncheierii procesuluiverbal de control din 20 mai 2002, ceea ce duce la concluzia c la data efecturii controlului, evidena financiarcontabil nu era ntocmit la zi. n ceea ce privete constatarea instanei, c procesul-verbal de control a fost ncheiat cu nclcarea art.19 alin.2 din O.G. 70/1997, n sensul c perioada n care s-a derulat contractul de leasing a mai fost verificat de Administraia Finanelor Publice Sector 3, recurenta-prt a artat c este eronat, ntruct controlul Grzii Financiare a vizat o alt perioad de timp dect cea consemnat n actul de control al organului fiscal teritorial i anume dac n luna februarie 2002 a fost calculat corect impozitul pe profit. n motivarea recursului pe care l-a formulat, recurenta-prt Agenia Naional de Administrare Fiscal a invocat prevederile art.304 pct.9 Cod procedur civil, artnd c n temeiul prevederilor O.G. nr.51/28.august 1997, republicat, privind operaiunile de leasing i societile de leasing, aprobat prin Legea nr.90/1999 i ale O.M.F.
nr.686/1999, pentru aprobarea normelor privind nregistrrile operaiunilor de leasing, n cazul leasingului financiar, astfel cum a fost calificat contractul nr. MAL 040/1999, reprezint cheltuieli deductibile la stabilirea impozitului pe profit doar cota de amortizare calculat conform prevederilor legale i dobnda aferent derulrii contractului de leasing. Pe de alt parte, recurenta-prt a artat c n spe nu sunt incidente prevederile art.19 alin.2 din O.U.G. nr.70/1997 privind controlul fiscal, pentru c intimata-reclamant nu a adus nici un argument din care s rezulte c impozitul pe profit aferent lunii februarie 2002 a fost verificat anterior, iar alte motive de nelegalitate nu au fost invocate n contestaie, conform art.3 alin.1 lit.c din O.U.G. 13/2001. Examinnd cauza n raport de motivele de recurs invocate i de prevederile art.3041 Cod procedur civil, innd seama de nscrisurile depuse la dosarul de fond i de prevederile legale aplicabile n cauz, Curtea constat c recursurile nu sunt fondate. Sentina atacat cuprinde motivele de fapt i de drept care au format convingerea instanei, precum i cele pentru care s-au nlturat argumentele prtelor, conform art.261 alin.1 pct.5 Cod procedur civil. Judectorul nu este obligat s rspund n mod expres fiecrui argument invocat de pri, fiind suficient ca din ntregul hotrrii s rezulte c a rspuns tuturor argumentelor n mod implicit, prin raionamente logice. n consecin, Curtea constat nentemeiat critica viznd nemotivarea sentinei, ncadrat n prevederile art.304 pct.7 Cod procedur civil, cuprins n recursul Grzii Financiare Comisariatul General. Potrivit art.315 alin.1 Cod procedur civil, n caz de casare, hotrrile instanei de recurs asupra problemelor de drept dezlegate, precum i asupra necesitii administrrii unor probe sunt obligatorii pentru judectorii fondului. Obiectivele expertizei contabile efectuate n cauz au fost stabilite conform indicaiilor cuprinse n decizia de casare nr.353/25 iunie 2005 a naltei Curi de Casaie i Justiie Secia de Contencios Administrativ i Fiscal, iar la soluionarea cauzei a fost avut n vedere i rspunsul la obieciunile formulate de intimata-prt Garda Financiar Central. n procesul-verbal nr.991 ncheiat la data de 20 mai 2002, organul de control a reinut c n luna februarie 2002, societatea reclamant a reconsiderat contractul de leasing nr. MAL 040, procednd la recalcularea impozitului pe profit, dar aceast afirmaie, reluat i n cererile de recurs, nu este susinut de nici unul dintre nscrisurile depuse la dosar i este infirmat de concluziile raportului de expertiz contabil ntocmit pe baza verificrii documentelor i evidenelor de specialitate, conform art.201 alin.1 Cod procedur civil. Recurenteleprte au fcut referire la o cerere de compensare a impozitului pe profit stabilit n plus cu TVA de rambursat (cererea nr.1080/30 aprilie 2002 ), dar nu au depus aceast cerere la dosar, pentru a se verifica dac exist vreo legtur ntre suma pentru care s-ar fi solicitat compensarea i pretinsa sum stabilit n plus cu titlu de impozit pe profit n urma unei reconsiderri a contractului de leasing nr.MAL 040/15 iunie 1999, reconsiderare care s-ar fi fcut din iniiativa intimatei-reclamante i care ar fi putut fi interpretat drept o mprejurare nou care s justifice controlul. Potrivit art.19 alin.1 din O.G. 70/1997, aprobat prin Legea 64/1999, privind controlul fiscal, n vigoare n perioada supus analizei, controlul fiscal se efectua o singur dat, pentru fiecare impozit i pentru fiecare perioad supus impozitrii. Alineatul 2 al aceluiai articol prevedea, prin excepie de la alineatul 1, c reverificarea unei anumite perioade era permis dac de la data ncheierii controlului fiscal i pn la mplinirea termenului de prescripie
apreau date suplimentare, necunoscute organului de control fiscal la data efecturii controlului, de natur s influeneze sau s modifice rezultatele acestuia. n procesul verbal nr.991/20 mai 2002 se prevede expres c obiectivul controlului l constituie verificarea derulrii, evidenierii i nregistrrii n contabilitate a contractelor de leasing nr. AFIVPRO/112/1998 i MAL 040/15 iunie 1999 i nicidecum verificarea impozitului pe profit pe luna februarie 2002, aa cum se susine n cererile de recurs, majorrile de ntrziere fiind calculate pentru perioada derulrii contractului. Modul de calcul al impozitului pe profit i legalitatea nregistrrilor efectuate n contabilitate cu privire la contractul de leasing n discuie mai fuseser ns verificate, prin procesele verbale depuse la dosarul de fond, astfel nct organul de control fiscal nu mai putea proceda, din oficiu, la recalificarea naturii contractului de leasing. n aceste condiii, instana de fond a reinut n mod corect nclcarea prevederilor art.19 din O.G. 70/1997, ntruct nu s-a fcut dovada existenei unor date suplimentare pentru perioada deja controlat. Susinerile reclamantei, privind inexistena unei recalculri a impozitului pe profit n luna februarie 2002, ca efect al reconsiderrii contractului de leasing nr. MAL nr.040/15 iunie 1999, nu sunt motive noi de nelegalitate cu privire la actele administrativ fiscale, neinvocate n contestaia administrativ, ci argumente n sprijinul ideii c procesul-verbal de control atacat a fost ntocmit fr s existe date suplimentare ulterioare controalelor deja efectuate, n sensul art.19 alin.2 din O.G. 70/1997. n raport de aceste considerente, Curtea constat c sentina instanei de fond a fost pronunat cu interpretarea corect a probelor administrative n cauz i cu aplicarea corespunztoare a prevederilor legale invocate, neexistnd motive de modificare sau casare a hotrrii, conform art.304 pct.9 sau 3041 Cod procedur civil, astfel nct recursurile au fost respinse ca nefondate.
Appeal courts may review such findings of fact and law as established by the lower court18. 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 judgment19. Nevertheless, in trying such requests the court may review the findings of fact and law in order to interpret the dictum20.
Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 295. 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) 467. 21 Tabarca and Buta (n2) 702. 22 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 105(2). 23 ibid, art 297. 24 Fodor (n5) 400. 25 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) 580.
19
18
10
judgment28. 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.
Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 322(5). Fodor (n5) 382. 30 Tabarca and Buta (n2) 1421. 31 ibid, 721. 32 Fodor (n5) 383, Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 377. 33 A Nicolae, Aspecte privind efectele substantiale ale hotararii judecatoresti 2 Revista romana de drept privat 2007, 99.
11
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.
34
12
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) 400. 37 ibid, 401.
13
the res judicata exception of article 166 Code of Civil Procedure, the opinion expressed in the literature38 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). In this context, these legislative provisions should be cited. Accordingly, article 1201 Civil Code39 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)
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 objective41. It is therefore not necessary that the claims should be similarly formulated42. 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 Iasi43 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.
38 See Viorel Mihai Ciobanu, Tratat teoretic si practic de procedura civila. Teorie generala,,(2nd vol National, Bucharest 1997), 270-271, Mihaela Tabarca, Drept Procesual Civil, (Global Lex, Bucharest 2005), 703. 39 Codul Civil 1865 (Civil Code of Romania, as amended up to and including 2006), art 1201. 40 CA Craiova, decizia no. 141/2007, < http://porta.just.ro > accessed 18 December 2007 (Court of Appeal Craiova). 41 CA Tomisoara, decizia no. 289/2007, < http://porta.just.ro > 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).
14
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 ICCJ45 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. 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 law46. 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.
44 45
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). 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). . 46 Tabarca and Buta (n2) 533. 47 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 166. 48 CA Cluj, sectia civila, decizia no. 361/1999, Buletinul Jurisprudentei 1999, 198 (Court of Appeal Cluj).
15
Full Response: Under certain specific circumstances, expressly stipulated by law49, 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 upon50. 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 appeal51. 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 elements53, then such a motion may be 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).
49 50
Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 317. Tabarca and Buta (n2) 911, Fodor (n5) 543. 51 Tabarca and Buta (n2) 912. 52 Codul de Procedura Civila (n1) art 322-328. 53 Fodor (n5) 562.
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.
Ciobanu (n38) 270-271, Tabarca (n38) 703. Tabarca and Buta (n2) 533.
17
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? Summary: Preclusive effects extend to any person with a close connection between the object of the claim and the cause of action of the original claim. As such this covers co-claimants/defendants and third parties and interveners in the original proceedings. Full Response: In addition to having preclusive effects towards the Claimant or Defendant, Romanian judgments are capable of having such effects towards other procedural parties as well. Accordingly, similar substantive preclusive effects extend to the co-claimants or co-defendants56. While the law (article 47 Code of Civil Procedure) stipulates that in order for such procedural co-participation to exist there needs to be identity of either the object of the claim or its legal ground (cause of action), the doctrine57 interprets this requirement broadly, so as to make such participation possible even where there is a close connection between the object of the claims and their legal grounds (cause of action). The manner in which the substantive preclusive effects in such situations may be invoked, as well as the exception to which such effects may be subject are similar to the ones invoked under the previous answer. Furthermore, such effects extend to third parties or interveners in the proceedings. Romanian law regulates two types of interveners in legal proceedings, namely voluntary interveners (i.e. at the initiative of the third party, regulated in articles 49-56 Code of Civil Procedure) and mandatory interveners. The latter consist of three situations expressly regulated by law58: introducing another party that might have similar claims as the claimant (articles 57-59 Code of Civil Procedure), introducing another party against whom a warranty or a guarantee may be asserted (article 60-63 Code of Civil Procedure) and where the defendant introduces the holder of the right in rem in the proceedings (articles 64-66 Code of Civil Procedure). Judgments pronounced in such case will have preclusive effects towards the interveners as well59, under the same conditions and exceptions as against the main parties.
8. Represented persons
Does your legal system provide for group/representative actions (including, for example, US-style class actions)? To what extent, if at all, do the claim preclusive effects of judgments in such actions extend to the other members of the group/persons represented in the action? Summary: The Court is provided with the power to order multiple co-claimants/defendants to be represented at trial. Any ensuing judgment has substantive preclusive effects towards each represented party. Full Response: Where in a trial there are several co-claimants or co-defendants, as made possible by article 47 Code of Civil Procedure, the president of the court where the proceedings are pending may order, in the interest of a good and efficient administration of justice, that parties be represented during trial (article 114(5) Code of Civil Procedure). The co-claimants may choose their own representative and failure to do so may trigger the suspension of the trial. On the other hand, if the co-defendants do not choose their own representative then the president of the court may choose a special representative. In such case, the ensuing judgment has substantive preclusive effects towards each represented party, subject to the same conditions and exceptions as stipulated for co-claimants and co-defendants, which in turn have been listed in the answer to question II.A.6 above.
56 57 58
Ioan Les, Codul de Procedura Civila, (All Beck, Bucharest 2005), 169. Tabarca and Buta (n2) 223, Fodor (n5) 201. Fodor (n5) 227. 59 ibid, 211.
18
10. Strangers
To what extent, if at all, do the claim preclusive effects extend to persons who have not directly participated in the proceedings giving rise to judgment and who are not connected in a legally relevant way to the Claimant, Defendant or another participant in the proceedings or the subject matter of the action? Under Romanian law, claim preclusive effects do not extend to persons not connected in a legally relevant way to the parties in the proceedings.
60 61
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). ibid. 62 TS, colegiul civil, decizia no. 1094/1963, 3 Justitie noua 1964, 134 (Supreme Tribunal), as cited in Tabarca and Buta (n2) 531. 63 G. Kovcs and B. Diamant, note to TJ Sibiu, decizie civila no. 1028/29 September 1973, 1 Revista Romana de Drept 1975, 42-44 (County Tribunal Sibiu), as cited in Tabarca and Buta (n2) 530.
19
20
With the exception of questions 3, 6 and 10 below, the answers provided under part II.A of this questionnaire will apply mutatis mutandis to this part.
70
21
7. Other participants
To what extent, if at all, do the issue preclusive effects of judgments extend to other participants in the litigation? Please refer to question II.B.1 above.
8. Represented persons
If your legal system provides for group/representative actions (including, for example, US-style class actions), to what extent, if at all, do the issue preclusive effects of judgments in such actions extend to the other members of the group/persons represented in the action? Please refer to question II.B.1 above.
10. Strangers
To what extent, if at all, do the issue preclusive effects of judgments extend to persons who have not directly participated in the proceedings giving rise to judgment and who are not connected in a legally relevant way to the Claimant, Defendant or another participant in the proceedings or the subject matter of the action? Summary:
71
CA Craiova, decizia no. 40/2006, < http://porta.just.ro > accessed 18 December 2007 (Court of Appeal Craiova).
22
Issue preclusive effects of judgments can be envisaged to extend to non-parties where the legal issue they litigate is materially the same as in an earlier decision. Full Response: Under certain circumstance, where issues of fact or law have been determined in a previous judgment, the preclusive effects of such may extend to subsequent litigation between parties who have not been directly involved in the first proceedings and who are not connected to the parties in such proceedings. For instance, one may envisage the situation whereby in a first judgment between an insurance company and an insured person a legal provision is interpreted in a certain manner, while second proceedings are opened between two unrelated parties, again an insurance company and a person insured. The interpretation of the law upheld by the court in the dictum of the first judgment might be presumed to be the truth and thus subsequent litigation on the same legal issue will be barred.
72 73
Fodor (n5) 92-100, Tabarca and Buta (n2) 1613. I. Stoenescu and S. Zilberstein, Drept procesual civil. Teoria generala. Judecata la prima instanta. Hotararea, (2nd edition, Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucharest 1983), 275.
23
abuse of process. This is even more so if the previous claim has been admitted or dismissed based also on abuse of process.
Tabraca and Buta (n2) 1613. ibid, I. Stoenescu and S. Zilberstein (n73) 275. 76 Tabraca and Buta (n2) 1615.
24
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 wider preclusion in the circumstances as described.
7. Other participants
To what extent, if at all, do the wider preclusive effects of judgments extend to other participants in the litigation? Not only the Claimant and the Defendant are barred from exercising their procedural right in bad faiths. The same is true for other participants, such as co-claimants co-defendants, as well as voluntary or mandatory interveners. These parties too are precluded from advancing related claims or from seeking the determination of a related issue of fact and/or law if such conduct is not in good faith and in accordance with the legal purpose of the right sought to be protected.
8. Represented persons
If your legal system provide for group/representative actions (including, for example, US-style class actions), to what extent, if at all, do the wider preclusive effects of judgments in such actions extend to the other members of the group/persons represented in the action? In their procedural conduct, represented persons are bound by the same rules applicable to the main parties or to other participants. As a result, they may raise related claims or seek the determination of related issues of fact and/or law in subsequent proceedings, provided that their conduct is not in bad faith.
10. Strangers
To what extent, if at all, do the wider preclusive effects of judgments extend to persons who have not directly participated in the proceedings giving rise to judgment and who are not connected in a legally relevant way to the Claimant, Defendant or another participant in the proceedings or the subject matter of the action?
25
Under Romanian law, wider preclusive effects do not extend to persons not connected in a legally relevant way to the parties in the proceedings.
26
27
of the judgment as a civil or commercial would matter, the name of the issuing authority, criminal courts or administrative tribunals, would be less important.
79 80
Government Emergency Ordinance 119/2006 (Romania). Case 93/71 Leonensio v Minstero dell' Agricoltura e Foreste [1972] ECR 287. 81 See for the need to lodge a request fro recognition Rubin Meyer Doru & Trandafir (n78).
28
the grounds for refusal. Such may occur in the appeal stage, in my view either ex officio or at the request of the party against whom recognition is sought.
4. Effects of recognition
What are the effects of "recognition" within the Brussels/Lugano Regime? Summary: Again lack of case law precludes a full answer. Currently foreign non-EU judgments are deemed to have the same preclusive effects as Romanian judgments (law no.105/1992) and presumably EU judgments will be given the same effect. Whether the Romanian Courts will follow the ECJ approach in Hoffmann v. Krieg is as yet unclear. Full Response: Since the existing Romanian case law and literature is not sufficient to provide an answer to this question, it is necessary to turn to the regime for recognition of judgment from outside the European Union. Such effects are governed by law no. 105/1992. Accordingly, judgments recognized based on this law, either without any procedure being required or after a request has been lodged with the competent Romanian court, have similar preclusive effects as Romanian judgments84. It can be assumed that the effects of recognition of such judgments in Romania would apply a fortiori in case of judgments originating in the European Union, irrespective of the procedure for recognition. It is not clear whether Romanian courts will alter this approach in the future, in the framework of the Brussels Regulation regime, and apply rather the approach upheld in the Jenard Report and in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Hoffmann v
ICCJ, sectia civila si de proprietate intelectuala, decizia no. 5537/2006, http://www.scj.ro accessed 8 January 2008, (Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice). 83 ICCJ, sectia civila si de proprietate intelectuala, decizia no. 5826/2005, http://www.scj.ro accessed 8 January 2008, (Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice). 84 Ion P. Filipescu and Andrei I. Filipescu, Tratat de drept international privat, Universul Juridic,Bucharest 2005) 450.
82
29
Krieg85 that "[r]ecognition must have the result of conferring on judgments the authority and effectiveness accorded to them in the State in which they were given".
B. Claim preclusion within the Brussels/Lugano Regime 1. Existence and nature of claim preclusive effects
Do judgments recognised in accordance with the Brussels/Lugano Regime have claim preclusive effects in your legal system? Summary: Since foreign judgments are deemed to have the same preclusive effects as Romanian judgments (law no.105/1992), foreign judgments will have res judicata effects from the moment they are rendered. This again assumes the Romanian courts will not adopt the decision in Hoffmann v. Krieg. Full Response: As stated above, judgments recognized in Romania would have similar preclusive effects as a Romanian judgment. As shown in part II above, Romanian judgments have claim preclusive effects, a feature that extends to recognized foreign judgments as well. Since Romanian judgments have res judicata effects from the moment they are rendered, even though they are not final, one may conclude that recognized foreign judgments will have such effects as well. Of course, should Romanian courts decide to apply the approach upheld by the ECJ in Hoffman v Krieg86, then such recognized foreign judgments that are not yet final will have claim preclusive effects insofar as such effects are upheld by the law of the State of Origin.
85 86
Case 145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg [1988] ECR 645, para 10. Ibid. 87 Ion P. Filipescu and Andrei I. Filipescu (n84) 450.
30
Since these conditions are similar for domestic Romanian judgments, please refer to question II.A.3 above.
88
Ibid.
31
The preclusive effect of EU judgments is limited by Arts 34 & 35 (1) Brussels Regulation, in that if the judgment is not recognized at all on the basis of one of these articles, the judgment will have no preclusive effect. Full Response: The exceptions to claim preclusive effects listed above under question II.A.5 apply to Romanian judgments only. As a result, if the foreign judgment originating in another Member State has been recognised as a result of an action submitted before Romanian courts based on article 33(2) or 33(3) Brussels Regulation, the motion for annulment of judgment or the motion to annul the judgment would be available as against the Romanian recognising judgment only. With regard to the claim preclusive effects of the foreign judgment, such can be affected only to the extent that recognition is barred altogether because of one of the refusal grounds as listed in article 34 and 35(1) Brussels Regulation. Here too one would have to caution that future case law developments might bring change to the current state of affairs.
32
As mentioned above, until Romanian courts state their view on the doctrine of extension of effects as upheld by the European Court of Justice in Hoffman v Krieg89, judgments recognized in accordance with the Brussels Regime will have similar effects as Romanian judgments. This would mean that courts in subsequent proceedings would have to presume that the determination of issues of fact or law included in the dictum of the recognized foreign judgment contains the truth and are bound not to contradict such. This would further mean that based on this principle, as well as the prohibition to review foreign judgments as to their substance set out in article 36 Brussels Regulation, Romanian courts are bound to dismiss objections in relation to findings of fact or law, as long as such have been included in the operative part (dictum) of the foreign judgment. Since the effects of recognized foreign judgments are equal to those of Romanian judgments, the comments made above under question II.B.1 apply mutatis mutandis.
89 90
Case 145/86 [1988] ECR 645. Ion P. Filipescu and Andrie I. Filipescu (n84) 450.
33
D. Wider preclusion (abuse of process/claims and issues that could or should have been raised) 1. The existence and nature of wider preclusive effects
Do judgments recognised in accordance with the Brussels/Lugano Regime have wider preclusive effects in your legal system?
34
Once recognized, foreign judgments have similar effects as Romanian judgments. Accordingly, a subsequent related claim may be barred based on the Romanian rules of abuse of process, as set out in article 723 Code of Civil Procedure. For further details on this matter please refer to question II.C.1 above.
35
36
The second set of requirements has a more permissive character, which implies that the recognising court may refuse recognition in any of the following situations: the foreign judgment has been rendered as a result of a procedural fraud; the judgment infringes upon the Romanian private international law public policy. Such an infringement is if the foreign court assumed jurisdiction where Romanian courts had exclusive jurisdiction based on law 105/1992; the trial between the same parties has ended with a judgment rendered by a Romanian court, even if not yet final, or was pending before Romanian courts when the foreign court has been seized with the matter.
Furthermore, the law contains a prohibition to review the foreign judgments as to their substance.
91
37
With regard to the procedure to be followed, the request for recognition is submitted to the county tribunal at the place of domicile or at the seat of the party against whom recognition is sought92. The request may be submitted also in the framework of another procedure, as an incidental question. It should be noted that while Romanian courts will review foreign third state judgments in order to decide on their recognition, judgments on the status of foreign nationals, pronounced either by the courts of such states or by courts in third countries and recognised in the state of the nationality under dispute, are recognised in Romania without the need for any procedure.
92
Ibid, 451.
38