Admissibility of preliminary reference on inclusion of judicially recognized, non-regulated device allowance in salary equalization under Government Emergency Ordinances 57/2015 and 99/2016
Romania (RO)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court of Cassation and Justice rejected as inadmissible the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Cluj Court of Appeal, effectively dismissing the procedural challenge and leaving the lower court's handling of the matter unaffected. The dispute concerned the interpretation of salary equalization rules, specifically whether the maximum base salary or allowance could be calculated by including a "device allowance" that was not legally regulated for the specific category of civil servants but had been judicially recognized as part of the base salary. The decisive legal issue involved the application and interpretation of Article 31(1) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 57/2015 (as in force on February 1, 2017), read in light of Article 1(1) and (2) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 99/2016, regarding the inclusion of such extra-legal allowances in the mandatory salary equalization mechanism.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedart. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Admissibility of preliminary reference on inclusion of judicially recognized, non-regulated device allowance in salary equalization under Government Emergency Ordinances 57/2015 and 99/2016: The dispute concerned the interpretation of salary equalization rules, specifically whether the maximum base salary or allowance could be calculated by including a "device allowance" that was not legally regulated for the specific category of civil servants but had been judicially recognized as part of the base salary. The decisive legal issue involved the application and interpretation of Article 31(1) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 57/2015 (as in force on February 1, 2017), read in light of Article 1(1) and (2) of Emergency Government Ordinance No. 99/2016, regarding the inclusion of such extra-legal allowances in the mandatory salary equalization mechanism.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedCited in the dispositive to establish the mandatory legal effect of the court's decision.
Full text
ROMÂNIA
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE
Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept
Minuta deciziei nr. 33 Dosar nr. 718/1/2019
Şedinţa din 24 iunie 2019
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
DECIDE:
Respinge ca inadmisibilă sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Cluj - Secţia a III-a contencios administrativ şi fiscal în dosarul nr. 2680/84/2017 în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarea chestiune de drept: „dacă aplicarea şi interpretarea art. 31 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 57/2015, în forma în vigoare la data de 1 februarie 2017, prin raportare la prevederile art. 1 alin. (1) şi (2) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 99/2016, egalizarea la nivelul maxim al salariului de bază/indemnizaţiei de încadrare se poate realiza prin luarea în considerare şi a sporului de dispozitiv, inclus în salariul de bază, recunoscut printr-o hotărâre judecătorească şi nereglementat legal pentru categoria de funcţionari din cadrul autorităţii respective”.
Obligatorie, potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.
Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 24 iunie 2019.