Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_114068 AI generated

Executing court salary awards to employees is not discriminatory treatment of coworkers; preliminary ruling admitted in part.

Case Number ICCJ_114068
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted in part the referral from the Constanța Court of Appeal on a preliminary question, holding that executing court judgments granting certain salary rights to some employees does not constitute discriminatory treatment of other employees under Art. 2, read with Art. 1(2)(e)(i) and (3) of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on preventing and sanctioning all forms of discrimination, as republished and approved by Law No. 48/2002; the remainder of the referral was dismissed as inadmissible. This is a binding preliminary ruling under Art. 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, resolving a question of law in an employment discrimination dispute where non-beneficiary employees claimed unequal treatment due to judicial awards of salary rights to colleagues. The decisive legal basis is that the execution of court decisions, as a lawful judicial remedy, does not fall within the scope of discriminatory conduct defined by the anti-discrimination ordinance.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedura civila; Executing court salary awards to employees is not discriminatory treatment of coworkers; preliminary ruling admitted in part: 2, read with Art. 1(2)(e)(i) and (3) of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on preventing and sanctioning all forms of discrimination, as republished and approved by Law No. 48/2002; the remainder of the referral was dismissed as inadmissible. This is a binding preliminary ruling under Art. 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, resolving a question of law in an employment discrimination dispute where non-beneficiary employees claimed unequal treatment due to judicial awards of salary rights to colleagues. The decisive legal basis is that the execution of court decisions, as a lawful judicial remedy, does not fall within the scope of discriminatory conduct defined by the anti-discrimination ordinance.

Keywords

AI generated
equal treatment and non-discrimination judicial law preliminary ruling procedure remuneration of salaried employees civil judgment public employment law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedura civila
Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to establish that the ruling is mandatory.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 3246/2017
Dispute over wage equality for judicial staff; whether benefits granted to colleagues via final court judgments constitute unlawful discrimination absent individual judicial titles
ICCJ_118648
Salary discrimination claim rejected: no protected criterion in unequal pay via judgment enforcement; other referral questions inadmissible
Decizia nr. 3970/2012
Scope of discrimination review in collective dismissal and salary disputes: requirement to prove comparable situations and non-comparable differential treatment.
Decizia nr. 4297/2009
Salary discrimination claim by court staff fails as unequal pay differentials upheld; appeal rejected as unfounded.
Decizia nr. 3777/2022
Appeal against denial of salary equalization for teachers dismissed as unfounded, upholding that judicial awards to other staff do not constitute wage discrimination.

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 2 raportat la art. 1 alin. (2) lit. e) (i) si alin. (3) din Ordonanta Guvernului nr. 137/2000 privind prevenirea si sanctionarea tuturor formelor de discriminare, republicata, aprobata prin Legea nr. 48/2002

Main ground for the ruling on the merits, interpreting that enforcing court decisions on salary rights is not discriminatory.

Art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedura civila

Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to establish that the ruling is mandatory.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

ROMÂNIA

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept

Minuta deciziei nr.2 Dosar nr.13/1/2014/HP/C

Şedinţa de la 19 ianuarie 2015

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite în parte sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Constanţa - Secţia I civilă în dosarul nr. 2886/113/2013, privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea modului de interpretare şi aplicare a dispoziţiilor art. 2 raportat la art. 1 alin. (2) lit. e) (i) şi alin. (3) şi a art. 27 din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr.137/2000 privind prevenirea şi sancţionarea tuturor formelor de discriminare, republicată, aprobată prin Legea nr. 48/2002 şi în consecinţă stabileşte că:

În aplicarea art. 2 raportat la art.1 alin. (2) lit. e) (i) şi alin. (3) din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 137/2000 privind prevenirea şi sancţionarea tuturor formelor de discriminare, republicată, aprobată prin Legea nr. 48/2002, punerea în executare a hotărârilor judecătoreşti prin care s-au acordat unor angajaţi anumite drepturi salariale nu reprezintă un tratament discriminatoriu al celorlalţi angajaţi.

Respinge în rest sesizarea ca inadmisibilă.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi 19 ianuarie 2015.