High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled that the defendant may object to the applicant, by the way of defense, legal compensation, according to art. 1144 et seq. C. civ. (art. 1616 et seq. NCC), but only if it holds on its turn a certain debt, liquid and exigible. In this case, however, claim that the defendant has objected to compensate a plaintiff was not certain, liquid and exigible, provided that the defendant even requested permission to administer a survey evidence, to determine its amount. Therefore, the nature of compensation being in this situation a judicial one, the defendant was required to submit its right by way of capitalization of counterclaim, and not by way of defense, whose function, presentation of defense, is different. (Decision no. 2751 of September 26, 2014 rendered the appeal of Section II of the Civil High Court of Cassation and Justice covering claims).
:: The source: JURIDICE.ro