The issue of court costs, more precisely the evidence provided to support the request for such costs, was recently addressed in an appeal in the interest of the law, resolved by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
On August 7, 2024, Decision no. 34/2024 was published in the Official Gazette, Part I. This Decision was issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on June 17, 2024 and it resolved the appeal in the interest of the law regarding court costs, more precisely regarding the interpretation of the provisions of art. 452 Civil Procedure Code related to the provisions of art. 470 Civil Procedure Code.
First of all, given the context, we will make a brief reference to the provisions regarding the appeal in the interest of the law in the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, according to art. 519 Civil Procedure Code: “If, during the trial, a panel of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Court of Appeal or the Tribunal, charged with resolving the case in the last instance, finding that a question of law, to whose clarification depends on the merits of the case in question, it is new and the High Court of Cassation and Justice has not ruled on it nor is it the subject of an appeal in the interest of the law being resolved, it will be able to request the High Court of Cassation and Justice to pronounce a decision by which to give a solution in principle to the question of law with which it was referred”.
At the same time, relevant in this context are also the provisions of art. 521 para. (3) Code of civil procedure, according to which: “Disclosure of legal issues is mandatory from the date of publication of the decision in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, and for the court that requested the disclosure, from the date of the decision’s pronouncement“.
We also believe that it would be appropriate, in this context, to make a brief reference to the issue of court costs in a civil trial. Therefore, according to art. 453 para. (1) Civil procedure code: “The party that loses the case will be obliged, at the request of the party that won, to pay court costs“. The provisions of art. 451 of the Civil Procedure Code shows which expenses are included in court expenses, without having a limiting character. Thus, according to art. 451 para. (1) Civil Procedure Code: “Court costs consist of judicial stamp fees and the judicial stamp, the fees of lawyers, experts and specialists appointed under the terms of art. 330 para. (3), the sums due to the witnesses for travel and the losses caused by the need to be present at the trial, the expenses of transportation and, if necessary, of accommodation, as well as any other expenses necessary for the proper conduct of the trial”.
In resolving the legal issue, with which it was referred, the supreme court admitted the appeal and noted that: “The provisions of art. 452 related to those of art. 470 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is interpreted in the sense that, in the event that court costs were requested before the first court, but proof of their payment was not made until the closing date of the debates on the merits of the case, it can be done, through documents we, this evidence, in the appeal declared against the decision to reject the request for court costs”.
Therefore, by this decision, the appellate courts are obliged to take into account, when judging the appeal, the documents submitted, in the procedural path of the appeal, which prove the payment of the court costs of the first instance, in the hypothesis where the appeal was declared against the solution to the rejection of the request for court costs.
Until the publication of this decision in the Official Gazette, the jurisprudence was non-uniform, regarding the granting of court costs requested before the first court and proven during the procedural stage of the appeal. Thus, there were courts that no longer took into account the evidence certifying the payment of the court costs submitted during the appeal and rejected this request of the party, made through the appeal request. However, from the moment of the pronouncement of Decision no. 34/2024, the courts must take into account what the supreme court ordered and decide, in accordance with what the High Court established, in relation to this aspect.
We believe that the resolution offered to this legal matter is welcome and of great help to those involved in litigation, given that the recovery of court costs is an essential aspect of a civil process.
Also, the High Court held the following, through the above-mentioned decision: “As long as the law gives the possibility of supplementing the evidence on the main claims with new evidence in the appeal, there is no reason, in the absence of an express exception within to the rules governing the appeal, in order to give a contrary solution in the matter of the admissibility of new evidence regarding the small accessory of court costs”.
In this regard, the supreme court refers to the legal provisions that provide for the possibility of administering new evidence, during the procedural stage of the appeal, if the court of appeal considers them necessary and useful for the resolution of the case. Therefore, the High Court appreciates that since other evidence can be administered, it would be unfair not to have the possibility that the evidence certifying the payment of court costs cannot be administered, in the procedural stage of the appeal.
In support of this Decision, the court also refers to the retained provisions, in the content of another Decision pronounced in the appeal procedure in the interest of the Law, more precisely Decision no. 9 of March 30, 2020, through which the following were retained: “In the interpretation and uniform application of the provisions of art. 470, art. 478 para. (2) and of art. 479 para. (2) from the Code of Civil Procedure, by reference to art. 254 para. (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the notion of new evidence that can be proposed and approved in the appeal phase includes both the evidence proposed before the first court through the request for summons or response, as well as those that are not they were proposed before the first court or they were proposed late, and in their case the first court found the forfeiture”.
Thus, although apparently, through the strict interpretation of the legal provisions of art. 452 of the Civil Procedure Code, it would be inferred that the proof of court costs must be made until the finalization of the litigation before the first instance, the High Court of Cassation and Justice makes a broader interpretation by referring to other relevant norms, regarding probation and judgment on appeal.
At the same time, we believe that this Decision no. 34/2024 has an edifying role and is welcome to put an end to the differences in optics and to arrive at a unified jurisprudence in relation to this matter.
Moreover, we also refer to the devolutionary effect of the appeal which supports, without any doubt, from a legal point of view, this perspective adopted by the supreme court.
Therefore, according to art. 476 of the Civil Procedure Code: “(1) The appeal exercised within the deadline provokes a new trial on the merits, the court of appeal ruling both in fact and in law. (2) In case the appeal is not motivated or the motivation of the appeal or the response does not include reasons, means of defense or new evidence, the court of appeal will rule, on the merits, only on the basis of what was invoked at the first instance.
Also, through this Decision, the supreme court also refers to provisions 470 of the Civil Procedure Code, regarding the appeal request, according to which: “The appeal request will include:
(…)
d) the evidence invoked in support of the appeal;
(…)
(4) When the proposed evidence is witnesses or documents not shown at the first instance, the provisions of art. 194 lit. e)”
Consequently, the considerations retained by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, through Decision no. 34/2024 produce important legal effects in civil cases, the recovery of court costs, by the party that wins the litigation, representing a matter of great interest for litigants.
This article was prepared, for the website of the civil society of lawyers Costaș, Negru & Asociații, by av. Oana Alexandra Budi from the Arad Bar Association.
Costaș, Negru & Asociații is a civil society of lawyers with offices in Cluj-Napoca, Bucharest and Arad, which offers assistance, legal representation and consultancy in several areas of practice through a team composed of 20 lawyers and consultants. Details regarding legal services and team composition can be found on the website https://www.costas-negru.ro. All rights for the materials published on the company’s website and through social networks belong to Costaș, Negru & Asociații, their reproduction being permitted only for informational purposes and with correct and complete citation of the source.
