The claimant physical person asked the court of law to oblige the defendant, a gas supplier company, to connect him again at the street connection for supply of natural gases and to compensate the quantity of consumed gases with the anticipated payment performed during the period 1994-2000. Also, the claimant requested that the court oblige the defendant to supply a certain quantity of natural gas for which he would have received subventions from the state for the years 2002-2003, and damages of Ron 150,000,000 for the prejudice produced.
By the civil decision no. 1032 of May 24, 2004 the Bacau Tribunal rejected the above mentioned request as not being grounded.
In order that the above mentioned decision is issued, the Bacau Tribunal ascertained that the claimant failed to comply with the obligation to pay in full the supplied natural gases therefore no compensation can operate for reciprocal receivables, and the value of the invoices for the period January 2002-december 2002 was calculated by deducting the guarantee of Ron 732,600.
After the above mentioned decision was issued, the claimant filed appeal. His appeal was allowed by the Appeal Court of Bacau by means of the decision no. 252 of November 16, 2004 and the court obliged the defendant to connect the claimant at the connection for supply of natural gases. However, the appeal court rejected the request for damages, for the reason of lack of payment of judicial taxes and for reason that such request was not solved by the first court of law.
Against the above mentioned decision of the appeal court both parties declared second appeal (recourse).
As such, the claimant argued that the decision of the appeal court is not legal as regards the damages, and asked the high court to allow the requested damages.
On the other side, the defendant argued that the appealed decision is not legal due to the fact that a conversion of money in delivered natural gas quantities can not be realized, and the deposited guarantee has the nature of covering potential debts of the beneficiaries and they such amounts are returned at the moment the contract ends; moreover, the contract provides no restitution to the beneficiary of the amounts deposited by compensation with the supplied quantity of gas.
The high court of cassation and justice rejected the second appeal filed by the defendant and allowed the second appeal filed by the claimant.