In the case of an action seeking to establish the validity of a bilateral exchange promise targeting goods subject to taxation and the pronouncement of a court decision that would hold place for authentic act, it is mandatory for the owners of the goods to submit a certificate of tax attestation and have paid all the obligations due to the local budget.
By decision no. 42 delivered in the file no.173 / 1/2017, the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided that, in the interpretation and uniform application of the provisions of art. 159 para. (5) of the Law no. 207/2015 on the Fiscal Procedure Code, in the case of an action requesting the determination of the validity of a bilateral exchange promise targeting goods subject to taxation and the pronouncement of a decision that would hold place for authentic act, it is mandatory for the owners of the goods to submit a certificate of Tax certification and have paid all the payment obligations due to the local budget of the territorial administrative unit in whose ray the registered asset is registered, regardless of whether the goods have equal value or different values. In the unitary interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 159 para. (7) of the Law no. 207/2015 regarding the Fiscal Procedure Code, the execution of a bilateral exchange promise, by pronouncing a court decision that would hold place for authentic alienation act fit for registration in the Land Registration, is not an enforcement procedure.
In connection with the requests for a court decision that hold place the authentic act, the Supreme Court decided by the Decision no. 23 pronounced in the file no.3996 / 1/2016 that, in interpreting and applying the provisions of art. 1.279 par. (3) the first sentence and art. 1,669 par. (1) of the Civil Code, the authentic form is not mandatory for the pre-contract of sale and purchase of a real estate, in order for the court to pronounce a decision that whould hold place of the authentic act.