Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_145128 AI generated

Admissibility of preliminary ruling on definition of social insurance health benefit beneficiaries under Emergency Government Ordinance No. 158/2005

Case Number ICCJ_145128
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 as inadmissible the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Pitești Court of Appeal, thereby leaving the lower court's jurisdiction to resolve the matter without a definitive interpretation from the supreme bench. The dispute concerned the correct interpretation of Article 40(1) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 158/2005 (as amended by Law No. 399/2006 and prior to amendments by Emergency Government Ordinance No. 68/2014), specifically whether the category of "beneficiaries" entitled to sick leave benefits includes the payers defined in Article 36(3)(a) and (b) or is limited to the insured person. The court applied Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the admissibility of the referral, deciding that the matter did not meet the statutory requirements for a binding clarification on a question of law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Admissibility of preliminary ruling on definition of social insurance health benefit beneficiaries under Emergency Government Ordinance No. 158/2005: The dispute concerned the correct interpretation of Article 40(1) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 158/2005 (as amended by Law No. 399/2006 and prior to amendments by Emergency Government Ordinance No. 68/2014), specifically whether the category of "beneficiaries" entitled to sick leave benefits includes the payers defined in Article 36(3)(a) and (b) or is limited to the insured person. The court applied Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the admissibility of the referral, deciding that the matter did not meet the statutory requirements for a binding clarification on a question of law.

Keywords

AI generated
preliminary decision in social insurance health insurance emergency government ordinance preliminary ruling procedure statutory benefit matter in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited as the basis for the mandatory nature of the court's decision on the preliminary ruling question.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 70/2018
Ambiguity of 90-day benefit claim period for employers vs. insureds under prior health insurance legislation precluded as non-novel due to settled case law and legislative clarification
Decizia nr. 368/2025
Admissibility of preliminary reference regarding social insurance contribution differentials and statute of limitations after judicial reclassification to special labor conditions.
Decizia nr. 151/2025
Admissibility of preliminary referral on pension revision for non-public-sector employees under Emergency Ordinance 62/2024
ICCJ_220718
Admissibility of preliminary referrals on interpreting forestry personnel pension benefits and special working conditions thresholds
ICCJ_228023
Admissibility of preliminary reference on inflation adjustment and interest for statutory health insurance contributions

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited as the basis for the mandatory nature of the court's decision on the preliminary ruling question.

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. 70 Dosar nr. 1959/1/2018

Şedinţa din 15 octombrie 2018

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea privind pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile formulată de Curtea de Apel Piteşti - Secţia I civilă, în dosarul nr. 1378/90/2015, cu privire la următoarea problemă de drept: „Interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 40 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 158/2005 privind concediile şi indemnizaţiile de asigurări sociale de sănătate, aprobată cu modificări şi completări prin Legea nr. 399/2006, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, în forma anterioară modificărilor aduse de Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 68/2014 privind modificarea şi completarea unor acte normative, aprobată cu modificări prin Legea nr. 265/2015, în sensul de a se stabili dacă în categoria beneficiarilor sunt sau nu cuprinşi şi plătitorii prevăzuţi de dispoziţiile art. 36 alin. (3) lit. a) şi b) din acelaşi act normativ sau numai persoana asigurată."

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi, 15 octombrie 2018.