Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_162468 AI generated

Material jurisdiction of the Labor Court for employer's restitution claim following voluntary pre-enforcement payment of an overturned first-instance judgment

Case Number ICCJ_162468
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the appeal in the interest of the law, establishing as mandatory legal precedent that an action brought by an employer against an employee for the restitution of sums voluntarily paid prior to compulsory enforcement, based on a first-instance final decision later overturned on appeal, constitutes a labor dispute subject to the jurisdiction of the Labor and Social Insurance Court Section of the Tribunal. The dispute centered on the determination of material jurisdiction for a restitution claim arising from a reversed labor-related judgment, with the appellate college of the Suceava Court of Appeal successfully challenging the lower classification. The decision relies on Article 256(1) of the Labor Code (Law No. 53/2003) to classify the nature of the action, and Articles 208 and 210 of the Social Dialogue Law (Law No. 62/2011) to assign exclusive material jurisdiction to the Tribunal, pursuant to Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code which renders the interpretation binding for all instances.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 256 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 53/2003, art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; Material jurisdiction of the Labor Court for employer's restitution claim following voluntary pre-enforcement payment of an overturned first-instance judgment: The dispute centered on the determination of material jurisdiction for a restitution claim arising from a reversed labor-related judgment, with the appellate college of the Suceava Court of Appeal successfully challenging the lower classification. The decision relies on Article 256(1) of the Labor Code (Law No. 53/2003) to classify the nature of the action, and Articles 208 and 210 of the Social Dialogue Law (Law No. 62/2011) to assign exclusive material jurisdiction to the Tribunal, pursuant to Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code which renders the interpretation binding for all instances.

Keywords

AI generated
civil judgment social insurance dispute application for enforcement - Jurisdiction enforcement of ruling action for payment labor jurisdictional conflict

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 256 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 53/2003
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is obligatory and binding for all cases similar to the one examined.
AI generated
ICCJ_169586
Employer's restitution claim for voluntary pre-execution payment after overturned judgment is labor dispute for tribunal, not enforcement court
Decizia nr. 2750/2018
Restitution of Undue Sum by Employee: Labor Jurisdiction vs. Enforcement Return Competence
Decizia nr. 1460/2020
Jurisdiction over restitution of voluntary enforcement sums as labor conflict barred by res judicata
Decizia nr. 87/2021
Jurisdiction for restitution of sums paid on annulled judgment: qualification as labor dispute under Labor Code Art. 256
Decizia nr. 7404/2011
Material jurisdiction for separate restitution claims following annulment of a labor law title under Art. 4042(3) CCP

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă

Cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is obligatory and binding for all cases similar to the one examined.

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 soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr. 15 Dosar nr. 1048/1/2020

Şedinţa din 20 iulie 2020

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Colegiul de conducere al Curţii de Apel Suceava şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

Acţiunea promovată de angajator în contradictoriu cu salariatul pentru restituirea sumelor achitate de primul celui de-al doilea, de bunăvoie, înainte de începerea executării silite, în baza unei hotărâri judecătoreşti executorii, de primă instanţă, care ulterior este desfiinţată în calea de atac, îmbracă natura juridică a unui conflict de muncă, a cărui soluţionare se circumscrie prevederilor art. 256 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 53/2003 privind Codul muncii, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, atrăgând competenţa materială de soluţionare în primă instanţă în favoarea tribunalului - Secţia specializată în litigii de muncă şi asigurări sociale, conform art. 208 şi art. 210 din Legea dialogului social nr. 62/2011, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare.

Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 20 iulie 2020.