Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_137606 AI generated

Inadmissibility of Reference on 25% Higher Education Supplement for Public Officials

Case Number ICCJ_137606
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 reference question filed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of specific statutory provisions governing public sector compensation. The dispute concerned the entitlement of public officials to a compensatory sum representing the counter-value of a 25% higher education pay supplement, particularly whether such sums were due for periods preceding the entry into force of Law No. 71/2015, affecting those who completed their university studies after the enactment of Framework Law No. 330/2009. The court found the referral inadmissible based on procedural requirements, thereby providing no new substantive legal interpretation. The decisive legal basis involved the application of Article 521 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the binding nature of the decision, and the scope of the reference related to the interplay between Framework Law No. 330/2009, Law No. 285/2010, and various emergency government ordinances regulating public sector salaries and education-based supplements.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 1 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 285/2010, art. 5 din Legea nr. 283/2011, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inadmissibility of Reference on 25% Higher Education Supplement for Public Officials: The dispute concerned the entitlement of public officials to a compensatory sum representing the counter-value of a 25% higher education pay supplement, particularly whether such sums were due for periods preceding the entry into force of Law No. 71/2015, affecting those who completed their university studies after the enactment of Framework Law No. 330/2009. The court found the referral inadmissible based on procedural requirements, thereby providing no new substantive legal interpretation. The decisive legal basis involved the application of Article 521 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the binding nature of the decision, and the scope of the reference related to the interplay between Framework Law No. 330/2009, Law No. 285/2010, and various emergency government ordinances regulating public sector salaries and education-based supplements.

Keywords

AI generated
statutory requirement Civil Procedure Code entitlement to compensation public legal official framework decision higher education

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 1 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 285/2010
330/2009, art. 1 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 285/2010, art.
art. 5 din Legea nr. 283/2011
(1) şi (2) şi art. 5 din Legea nr. 283/2011, art.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the court's decision.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 149/2025
Reference inadmissible for lacking a true question of law on public sector salary calculation under conflicting emergency orders
ICCJ_229617
Inadmissibility of reference on whether judicially awarded post and step supplements must be included in the salary ceiling for comparable public prosecutors under Law 153/2017
ICCJ_156419
Inadmissibility of preliminary reference on 15% disability salary supplement under Law 153/2017 and Government Decision 751/2018
ICCJ_222082
Inadmissibility of reference for preliminary ruling on salary calculation for public employees following statutory transformation of contractual posts
ICCJ_228031
Inadmissibility of reference on whether public authorities must reimburse rent and travel for public employees when service housing is unavailable

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the court's decision.

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. 82 Dosar nr. 1630/1/2017

Şedinţa din 20 noiembrie 2017

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Iaşi - Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în dosarul nr. 585/89/2016, privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea chestiunii de drept referitoare la interpretarea prevederilor art. 30 alin. (6) din Legea-cadru nr. 330/2009, art. 1 alin. (5) din Legea nr. 285/2010, art. 5 alin. (1) şi art. 6 din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 1/2010, art. 1 alin. (1) şi (2) şi art. 5 din Legea nr. 283/2011, art. 1 din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 84/2012, art. 1 alin. (2) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 103/2013, art. 1 alin. (2) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 83/2014, prin raportare la dispoziţiile art. 3 din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 137/2000, în ceea ce priveşte acordarea sumelor compensatorii reprezentând contravaloarea sporului de 25% de studii superioare, pentru funcţionarii publici care au absolvit studiile superioare după intrarea în vigoare a Legii-cadru nr. 330/2009, pentru perioada anterioară intrării în vigoare a Legii nr. 71/2015.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 20 noiembrie 2017.