High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that, in accordance with Art. 8 paragraph. (2) of Decree no. 167/1958 (art. 2528 par. 2 NCC), the limitation period for an action based on unjust enrichment begins to run from the time the one whose assets decreased knew or should have known that both increase another heritage and that one has benefited from this increase. The High Court also stated that the actio de in rem verso is subsidiary in the meaning of it can be promoted in the absence of any other legal means to repair the damage. In the present case, the applicant, although the payment date is known heritage that increases in this way and that to benefit from this increase, intended to wear another legal means to repair the damage, respectively the action for annulment of a loan contract in which tended to benefit as a result of invalid recovery and the principle of the restitutio in integrum. The High Court held that the right of action was born just at the time that irrevocably established that the applicant does not have at hand the action subsequent to cancellation of the loan agreement and the only legal means to contest is the action based on the principle of unjust enrichment. (Decision no. 2244 of June 13, 2014 rendered the appeal of Section II of the Civil High Court of Cassation and Justice covering action based on unjust enrichment).
:: The source: JURIDICE.ro