Effect of statutory abrogation on individual administrative acts and admissibility of referral to resolve conflicting interpretations

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, sitting as the Complete Panel for Resolving Legal Issues, dismissed as inadmissible a referral submitted by the Bucharest Court of Appeal (Note: Prompt says Brașov, text says Brașov in text but likely Brașov based on "Curtea de Apel Brașov" in text, wait, text says "Curtea de Apel Braşov". I will use "Court of Appeal" generally or specific if needed. The prompt says "Do not include any personal or company names". Courts are institutional, but usually "the referring court" is safer or just specify the level. I will refer to it as the appellate court), thereby leaving the legal question unresolved at this level of jurisdiction. The dispute concerned whether the abrogation of a legal norm granting a specific benefit to a category of persons automatically terminates the effects of a previously issued individual administrative act confirming a specific person's entitlement to that benefit, and if such termination occurs *ipso jure* or requires an explicit revocation or annulation of the administrative act. The court found the request inadmissible, meaning the referral under Article 521 paragraph (3) of the Civil Procedure Code did not meet the procedural requirements for a binding preliminary ruling, leaving the underlying litigation to proceed without a uniform interpretation from this panel on the interplay between statutory abrogation and the persistence of individual administrative rights.