Forestry risk-allowance interpretation referral inadmissible, Pitești Court of Appeal request rejected.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible the referral from the Pitești Court of Appeal concerning a preliminary ruling question, thereby rejecting the request for a binding interpretation and leaving the underlying appellate case (No. 3665/109/2017) unresolved by this preliminary mechanism. The dispute involved the interpretation of Article 120(5) of the Forestry Code (Law No. 46/2008, as republished; formerly Article 127(5))—specifically whether the award of a risk allowance for forestry personnel is conditional upon the issuance of the norms, regulations, instructions, and good-practice guides provided for under Article 115(1) (formerly Article 122(1)) of the same law. The court found the referral inadmissible, likely because the statutory interpretation question did not meet the procedural admissibility requirements for a preliminary ruling under Article 519 of the Civil Procedure Code (e.g., the issue was not genuinely novel or was not decisive for the pending case), and the decision is binding under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.