Principle of availability in the matter of the reducibility of the penalty clause

Maria Dumitru

USV - International Economic Conferences, Vision and Foresight in Economic Policies in Times of Crisis - 2013 Session

Maria Dumitru

Building: Building E
Room: E118
Date: 2013-11-01 12:00 PM – 01:30 PM
Last modified: 2013-10-30

Abstract

Being receptive to doctrinaire advocacies prior to October 1^st 2011 and taking into consideration the social and economical realities of the last decades, the Romanian legislator, in art. 1541 of the civil Code gives the court the power to reduce the evidently excessive penalty clause in relation to the prejudice that could have been foreseen by the parties at the date on which the contract was signed. Amid the silence of the legislator and taking into account the disposition right of the parties over the object of the civil trial, we propose to find whether the court can diminish the obviously excessive penalty clause only when invested with such request or whether this prerogative can be exercised ex of

References

Mazeaud, D. (1992) La notion de clause penale, Librairie Generale de Droit et de la Jurisprudence, Paris;

Angheni, S. (2000) Clauza penală, ed. Oscar Print, Bucureşti;

Deleanu, I., Deleanu, S. (2003) Consideraţii cu privire la clauza penală, Pandectele române, no. 1, pp. 113-135; Man, A., Varo (Cozea), N. (2004) Consideraţii cu privire la “ireductibilitatea clauzei penale”, Pandectele române, no. 6, pp. 251-254;

The term is used by the legislator in the law 193/2000 regarding abusive clauses in contracts between traders and consumers;

Deleanu, I., Deleanu, S., loc. cit., p. 127;

Dumitru, M. (2008) Reevaluarea judiciară a clauzei penale, Dreptul, no. 4/2008; Dumitru, M. (2010) Regimul juridic al dobânzii moratorii, ed. Universul Juridic, Bucureşti;

The solutions given by the body of jurisdiction share a few elements: all were towards reducing or eliminating the penalty clause, none towards increasing it; they were given at the request of a party, the reevaluation not being invoked by the court ex officio. The grounds for the judicial intervention on the penalty clause were diverse. Some arbitration courts motivated reducing the clause by the necessity of a balance between the prejudice caused and the claimed repair - Curtea de Arbitraj Comercial Internaţional de pe lângă Camera de Comerţ a României, sent. 89/1998, Jurisprudenţa comercială arbitrală, 1953-2000, Bucureşti, 2002, p. 86. Another motivation was that the rule of the irreducibility of the penalty clause in art. 1087 civil Code concerns a penalty clause set within the law and the principles of the civil Code, and not an abusive penalty clause, infringing good faith and balance between benefits – Curtea de Arbitraj Comercial Internaţional de pe lângă Camera de Comerţ a României, sent. 158/1999, Revista de Drept Comercial, no. 4/2000, pp. 125-127. Reducing the penalty clause was also grounded on art. 5 civil Code which prohibits setting clauses that infringe public order and morals, as well as on art. 966 civil Code, showing that prohibiting usurious terms is a constant in Romanian law. See Man, A., Varo, N. (2001) Notă la hotărârea arbitrală nr. 83/2000 a Comisiei de Arbitraj Comercial de pe lângă Camera de Comerţ, Industrie şi Agricultură Cluj, Revista de Drept Comercial, no. 1/2001.

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, S. com., dec. nr. 671/2006, Revista de Drept Comercial, no. 12/2006, pp. 157-162, in which the court ruled over the illegality of reducing the penalty clause of 6% per day of delay from the flow value; Curtea Supremă de Justiţie, S. com., dec. nr. 4/2000, Revista de Drept Comercial, no. 9/2001, p. 162

Ignătescu, C., Sisteme de drepturi subiective, Analele USV, nr. 12, ed. US, 2010

Regarding the grounds of the penalty clause, see Pop, L. (2011), Reglementarea clauzei penale în textile noului Cod civil, Dreptul, no. 8/2011, p. 23;

Angheni, S. (2012) Câteva aspect privind interpretarea şi aplicarea dispoziţiilor Noului Cod civil privind reductibilitatea clauzei penale, Curierul judiciar, no. 3/2012;

Angheni, S. (2011) Reductibilitatea clauzei penale. Repere legislative, doctrinare şi jurisprudenţiale, edn. “Justiţie, stat de drept şi cultură juridică”, ed. Universul Juridic, Bucureşti, p. 569;

Regarding the abuse of rights, see Ignătescu, C. Abuzul de drept, ed. Lumen, Iaşi 2013; Ignătescu, C. Abuzul de drept şi frauda la lege, în Studii şi cercetări juridice europene, vol. I al Conferinţei internaţională a doctoranzilor în drept Timişoara 2010, Ed. Wolters Kluwer, Bucureşti, 2010

Ludusan, F. (2013), Reductibilitatea clauzei penale în accepţiunea Codului civil din 1864, a noului Cod civil, a practicii judiciare şi a doctrinei, Dreptul, no. 5/2013, p. 108;

Art. 11 civil Code states that you cannot derogate through convention or unilateral acts from the laws regarding public order or morals; art. 14 civil Code shows that any person must exercise its rights and execute its obligations in good faith, according to public order and morals.

Angheni, S. (2012) Câteva aspecte privind interpretarea şi aplicarea dispoziţiilor Noului Cod civil privind reductibiltiatea clauzei penale, Curierul judiciar, no. 3/2012, p. 149;

Deleanu, I. (2000) Tratat de procedură civilă, vol. I, ed. Servo-Sat, Arad, pp. 38-39;