ro fr
universul juridic magazin

Amendment proposals for re-examination of the stamp duty request con

Taking into consideration the improper drafting of the relevant provisions in Law no. 146/1997, neither the doctrine, nor the jurisprudence were uniform in identifying the persons entitled to submit a re-examination request against the manner in which the duty stamp fee owed by the claimant was determined. According to certain authors and to certain courts, only the claimant could have submitted a request for re-examination; on the contrary, other authors and other courts deemed that this right should have been granted not only to the claimant, but also to the defendant, in respect of the claimant’s claim. In a very simplistic approach and not connected to the justification of the mechanism for the re-examination request, Government Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013 lays down the first thesis, which held a minoritary position in jurisprudence and doctrine formed under formar Law no. 146/1997. But this is not the only deficiency of the re-examination request in the new regulation; on the contrary, the regulation allows certain debatable solutions to persist; for instance, although the re-examination request is settled by another panel, still, the competence remains with the same court; likewise, the lawmaker omits to clarify specific procedural issues – such as setting forth a deadline until which the competent panel of judges must adjudicate the re-examination request or the obligation incumbent upon the initially vested panel to specify expressly the key reasons which based its ruling on the stamp fee amount. All these legal deficiencies must be rectified on the occasion of a future update of the framework law in the duty stamp fee field.