IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dcu/journl/v9y2015i1p57-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Preliminary Complaint In The Fiscal Procedure

Author

Listed:
  • Elena-Mihaela Fodor

Abstract

Under the provisions of the Fiscal procedure code (Government Ordinance no. 92/2003), the courts, especially the High Court of Cassation and Justice, developed a rigid jurisprudence in the fiscal field. The petitioners were not recognised the right to address the court for the recognition of their rights, if the preliminary complaints were not answered by the administrative body in the legal time limit. The courts claimed that only the decision that solved the preliminary complaint may be contested, or, in case the solution was delayed, the petitioner can only obtain in court a decision summoning the fiscal administrative authority to answer the preliminary complaint. A series of cases is analysed and arguments are given against the final solutions of the courts, in the spirit of a good administration and harmonisation of the fiscal procedure with the general administrative procedure described by Law no. 554/2004. The arguments sustain the recent changes in the field of contestation of fiscal administrative acts, introduced by the new Fiscal procedure code (Law no. 207/2015)that will enter into force on January 1st 2016.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena-Mihaela Fodor, 2015. "The Preliminary Complaint In The Fiscal Procedure," FIAT IUSTITIA, Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 57-66, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:dcu:journl:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:57-66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fiatiustitia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/191-Article-Text-366-1-10-20151105.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eugenia Iovanas, 2017. "Appeal Against The Titles Of The Tax Claim. Inadmissible Actions Formulated Directly In Court," FIAT IUSTITIA, Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania, vol. 11(1), pages 134-140, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dcu:journl:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:57-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://fiatiustitia.ro .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.