- Law 370/2022 on the approval of Romanian Government Ordinance no. 16/2022-amending the Romanian Fiscal Code
- For construction employers, the way of calculating the percentage of 80% turnover in construction in total revenues is changed. This percentage is determined as the ratio of the total income from the construction activity carried out on the territory of Romania. Basically, if there are builders who carry out constructions outside Romania and bill the revenues related to these constructions abroad, these revenues from abroad are not taken into account when determining the percentage of 80%. It is reiterated that the turnover also includes the production achieved but not invoiced.
- It is reiterated that HORECA companies can remain micro-enterprises regardless of the level of revenues and can perform other activities with the obligation to comply with the following conditions: it does not earn consultancy and management income higher than 20% of the total income, it does not carry out activities incompatible with those excluded for micro-enterprises (it does not obtain income from gambling, financial intermediation, mining of minerals), other income from activities does not exceed the equivalent of eur 500.000. If these conditions are violated, the company becomes a corporate tax payer starting with the quarter in which it no longer meets the condition.
- Decision no. 398/2022 on the rejection of the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 3, item 19 and Article 137, paragraph 2, of the Romanian Law no. 85/2006 on the insolvency procedure
- By Decision No 348 of 9 October 2019, given in case No 1,468/85/2012/a26, The Alba Iulia Court of Appeal – the second Civil Section has notified the Romanian Constitutional Court of the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 3, item 19 and Article 137, paragraph (2), of the Romanian Law no. 85/2006 on insolvency procedure. The exception of unconstitutionality was raised in a case for the purpose of settling the appeal against the sentence ordering the rejection of the appeal against the final consolidated debt table of the debtor. In reasoning of the exception of unconstitutionality, the author considers that the criticized provisions create a deeply unfair treatment between creditors, depending on the nature of the procedure in question, reorganization or bankruptcy. It also claims that the provisions of Article 3, item 19 of the Romanian Law no. 85/2006 could affect the impartiality of the judge, as it would oblige him to give a discriminatory decision.
- Contrary to the authors claims, the Romanian Constitutional Court finds that the criticized provisions do not violate the right to a fair trial and the impartiality of the court, since the final consolidated table is drawn up on the basis of the payment program of claims, contained in the reorganization plan, plan that is subject to the approval of creditors and verified from the point of view of legality by the syndic judge. The Romanian legislator also regulated the possibility of any interested creditor to challenge any unlawful decision taken in the insolvency proceedings, this appeal being to be settled by the syndic judge. Thus, according to Article 14 paragraph (7) of the Romanian Law no. 85/2006, any interested creditor can contest the minutes of the meeting of creditors, by which the reorganization plan was approved. If the creditor considers the judgment given in the appeal to be unlawful, it may be appealed to the competent court of appeal.
- Thus, the Romanian Constitutional Court rejects, as unfounded, the exception of unconstitutionality and finds that the provisions of Article 3, item 19 and Article 137, paragraph 2, of the Romanian Law no. 85/2006 on the insolvency procedure are constitutional in relation to the criticisms made.