Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_171942 AI generated

Inclusion of statutory surcharges within the 85% pension cap under Law 223/2015 on military state pensions

Case Number ICCJ_171942
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 filed by the Bucharest District Court, thereby leaving the lower court's reference unresolved. The dispute concerned the interpretation of military state pension legislation, specifically whether statutory surcharges of 3%, 6%, and 9% were to be included within the pension cap of 85% of the salary base or added to that capped amount. The legal issue centered on the harmonized interpretation of Articles 28, 29, 30, and 108 of Law No. 223/2015 regarding military state pensions, under the procedural framework of Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Inclusion of statutory surcharges within the 85% pension cap under Law 223/2015 on military state pensions: The dispute concerned the interpretation of military state pension legislation, specifically whether statutory surcharges of 3%, 6%, and 9% were to be included within the pension cap of 85% of the salary base or added to that capped amount. The legal issue centered on the harmonized interpretation of Articles 28, 29, 30, and 108 of Law No. 223/2015 regarding military state pensions, under the procedural framework of Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Keywords

AI generated
statutory limits provisions on pensions reference for a preliminary ruling framework decision Civil Procedure Code payment of surcharges

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is binding and must be applied by the referring court.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 302/2025
Pension surcharge inclusion in statutory cap: preliminary ruling request dismissed as inadmissible
ICCJ_178522
Military pension surcharge for "Military Merit" Order decorations and statutory net wage cap
ICCJ_178677
Whether the military merit honorific surcharge is integrated into the net pension cap under the state military pensions law
Decizia nr. 13/2021
Military pension increases included in 85% cap; referral on pension calculation inadmissible.
Decizia nr. 103/2025
Military pension cap: whether supplementary pension fund contribution surcharges fall within or are added to the 85% statutory limit

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to establish that the decision is binding and must be applied by the referring court.

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. 13 Dosar nr. 3340/1/2020

Şedinţa de la 15 martie 2021

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Braşov – Secția civilă, în dosarul nr. 2337/62/2019, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

„Interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 28, 29, 30 şi 108 din Legea nr. 223/2015 privind pensiile militare de stat, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, în sensul de a se preciza dacă sporurile de 3%, 6% şi 9%, prevăzute de art. 108 din lege, se includ în cuantumul pensiei ce nu poate depăşi 85% sau se adaugă în cuantumul pensiei ce nu poate depăşi 85% din soldă.”

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

Pronunţată în şedinţa publică din data de 15 martie 2021.