Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_133056 AI generated

Referral on interpretation of post-2010 doctoral salary classification under public sector pay ordinances

Case Number ICCJ_133056
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the referral for a preliminary ruling on a question of law as inadmissible, leaving the lower court to resolve the matter without a binding interpretative decision from the supreme court. The dispute concerned whether the salary provisions of Emergency Governmental Ordinance No. 83/2014, specifically Article 5(11) as approved by Law No. 71/2015, applied to public sector personnel who obtained a doctoral degree after the entry into force of Framework Law No. 284/2010 on unitary salary classification. The decisive legal basis was the procedural inadmissibility of the referral submitted by the Brașov Court of Appeal under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which precluded the substantive interpretation of the salary classification norms.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Referral on interpretation of post-2010 doctoral salary classification under public sector pay ordinances: The dispute concerned whether the salary provisions of Emergency Governmental Ordinance No. 83/2014, specifically Article 5(11) as approved by Law No. 71/2015, applied to public sector personnel who obtained a doctoral degree after the entry into force of Framework Law No. 284/2010 on unitary salary classification. The decisive legal basis was the procedural inadmissibility of the referral submitted by the Brașov Court of Appeal under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which precluded the substantive interpretation of the salary classification norms.

Keywords

AI generated
salary classification framework decision interpretation of the law classification of post preliminary ruling procedure matter in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory nature of the court’s decision on the admissibility of the referral.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 8/2017
Public sector doctoral salary supplement: scope of application of equalization rules to degrees obtained after the 2010 unified salary law
Decizia nr. 266/2025
Public-sector salary equalization referrals ruled inadmissible for lack of new interpretation.
ICCJ_225021
Admissibility of referral on interpretation of public sector salary calculation; referrals rejected as inadmissible
ICCJ_232199
Preliminary salary-equality referral ruled inadmissible for lack of genuine interpretive difficulty
Decizia nr. 71/2026
Inadmissibility of preliminary ruling referral regarding the distinction between central and local public administration in the salary classification of hospital technical staff under Annex VII to Law No. 153/2017

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 5 alin. (11) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 83/2014, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 71/2015

The substantive norm regarding public sector salary classification whose interpretation was requested but for which the referral was declared inadmissible.

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă

Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory nature of the court’s decision on the admissibility of the referral.

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. 8 Dosar nr. 3285/1/2016

Şedinţa din 20 februarie 2017

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Braşov – Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în dosarul nr. 152/119/2016, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

„Dispoziţiile art. 5 alin. (11) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 83/2014 privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice în anul 2015, precum şi alte măsuri în domeniul cheltuielilor publice, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 71/2015, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, se interpretează sau nu în sensul că se aplică persoanelor care au dobândit titlul de doctor după intrarea în vigoare a Legii-cadru nr. 284/2010 privind salarizarea unitară a personalului plătit din fondurile publice, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare ?”

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi 20 februarie 2017.