Romanian Order no. 1612/2023 regarding the documents that can be requested according to art. 61 para. (5) from the annex to the Romanian Government Decision no. 479/2003 on the approval of the Methodological Norms for the application of the Romanian Government Emergency Ordinance no. 28/1999 on the obligation of economic operators to use electronic fiscal cash registers
In the case of alternative transport by car and driver, as well as in the case of taxi transport activity, the tax body may request a copy of the agreement for the convening or rental of the vehicle.
In the case of alternative transport activity with car and driver, the fiscal body may request the Romanian Road Authority – A.R.R. information contained in the authorization for alternative transport by car and driver, as well as in the compliant copy of the authorization for alternative transport by car and driver, on the basis of an interinstitutional protocol.
If the user of the cash register has died and the rightful heir of the cash register applies for the assignment of the unique identification number, the fiscal body requests the certificate of heir attesting the inclusion in the succession mass of the fiscal electronic cash register.
European Court of Human Rights – Judgment in Oprea and Others v. Romania, of 13.12.2022
The object of the request is, pursuant to art. 6 of the Convention and of art. 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, rejection, following the retroactive application of a legislative amendment introduced during the procedure, of the civil action brought by the applicants against the State and the Municipality of Bucharest, by which they requested to find that they became the owners of a land by fulfilling the statute of limitations.
The applicants brought a civil action seeking to establish the fulfillment of the term of the precautionary prescription regarding a land located in Bucharest, composed of two plots, one of which they had built a building and for which they paid tax on buildings. They explained that they had acquired this last land on the basis of a private signature act concluded with a third party in 1964, and that, since then, they also occupied the second land, next to the first, which they cleaned and arranged a vegetable garden. They claimed that they had been in possession of the entire area of land uninterruptedly, undisturbed and under the name of the owner since 1964, basing its action on provisions of the Romanian Civil Code under which the prescription for real estate was 30 years.
By a civil judgment of November 6, 2013, the Bucharest District 3 Court dismissed the applicants’ action. Although he found that the evidence in the file showed that the persons concerned had owned the land claimed uninterruptedly for at least 40 years, the court noted that the former landowner had not been identified and considered that he had died and had no heirs. Therefore, it applied art. 26 para. (1) of the Romanian Law no. 18/1991 – in its version resulting from the amendment brought by the Romanian Law no. 158/2010, which entered into force on 22 July 2010 – under which the lands located in the urban area, remaining at the disposal of the local public administration authorities, from persons who died without heirs, they pass into the public property of the administrative-territorial units. Consequently, it considered that, under those new provisions, the land in question was part of the public property of the localities and therefore could not be private property, but were taken out of trade and could not be acquired by prescription.
Regarding the alleged violation of art. 6 of the Convention, finding that the respective end of the request formulated by the applicants pursuant to art. 6 is not manifestly unfounded and does not present any other reason of inadmissibility within the meaning of art. 35 of the Convention, the Court declared it admissible.