Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_220709 AI generated

Salary increase referrals partly inadmissible; no retroactive pay for specialists before implementing order

Case Number ICCJ_220709
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice (Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie), ruling on referrals for preliminary questions of law, dismissed as inadmissible the referral from the Ploieşti Court of Appeal concerning whether salary increases under art. 38(4) of Framework Law No. 153/2017 should be granted from 1 January 2021, but admitted the second referral and held, interpreting art. 28 of Annex VI to that law, that holders of the title of specialist in a class/functional field do not benefit from the corresponding salary increases for the period before the entry into force of the order issued by the principal authorizing officer that regulates the specialties, conditions, criteria, and performance standards for granting those salary rights. The decision is binding under art. 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby clarifying that retroactive salary increases are unavailable pending the requisite implementing order, with the referral dismissed and the interpretative ruling adopted in the public session of 9 December 2024.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 28 din Anexa VI a Legii-cadru nr. 153/2017, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Salary increase referrals partly inadmissible; no retroactive pay for specialists before implementing order: 38(4) of Framework Law No. 153/2017 should be granted from 1 January 2021, but admitted the second referral and held, interpreting art. 28 of Annex VI to that law, that holders of the title of specialist in a class/functional field do not benefit from the corresponding salary increases for the period before the entry into force of the order issued by the principal authorizing officer that regulates the specialties, conditions, criteria, and performance standards for granting those salary rights. The decision is binding under art. 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby clarifying that retroactive salary increases are unavailable pending the requisite implementing order, with the referral dismissed and the interpretative ruling adopted in the public session of 9 December 2024.

Keywords

AI generated
referral order reduction of statutory salary increase preliminary decision preliminary ruling procedure public-law benefit retroactive supplementary benefits

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 28 din Anexa VI a Legii-cadru nr. 153/2017
Main ground for the preliminary ruling on the interpretation of salary increases for holders of the specialist title.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural provision establishing the binding effect of the decision.
AI generated
ICCJ_226630
Salary increase for exceptional work not referable for pension-calculation ruling; referral inadmissible
Decizia nr. 56/2018
Referral for preliminary ruling on retroactive application of salary equalization measures to public sector staff entitled to prior judicial increases declared inadmissible for lack of legal novelty.
ICCJ_228134
Retroactive salary adjustments for mayor’s staff left unresolved; preliminary-ruling referral inadmissible.
ICCJ_230685
Preliminary ruling referral inadmissible; prior salary-law decision stands
Decizia nr. 56/2021
Retroactive salary rights referral rejected as inadmissible for seeking case-specific application, not abstract interpretation

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 28 din Anexa VI a Legii-cadru nr. 153/2017

Main ground for the preliminary ruling on the interpretation of salary increases for holders of the specialist title.

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

Procedural provision establishing the binding effect of the decision.

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. 105 Dosar nr. 2101/1/2024

Ședința din 9 decembrie 2024

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Ploieşti - Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal în Dosarul nr. 26.850/3/2021*, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

„Dacă, în aplicarea art. 38 alin. (4) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017, se impune acordarea majorărilor salariale reglementate de acest text legal, începând cu data de 01.01.2021,,

Admite sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Ploieşti - Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal în Dosarul nr. 26.850/3/2021* şi, în consecinţă, în interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 28 din Anexa VI a Legii-cadru nr. 153/2017 privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, stabileşte că:

Deţinătorii titlului de specialist de clasă/domeniu funcţional nu beneficiază de majorările salariale aferente pentru perioada anterioară intrării în vigoare a ordinului emis de ordonatorul principal de credite, prin care s-au reglementat specialităţile, condiţiile de acordare, criteriile şi standardele de performanţă, pentru acordarea acestor drepturi salariale.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 9 decembrie 2024.