Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_223185 AI generated

Prior service in other legal roles cannot count for judicial salary grades; binding preliminary ruling issued.

Case Number ICCJ_223185
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, ruling on preliminary questions referred by three lower courts, admitted the referrals and held that, under Articles 6(b) and (c) of Framework Law No. 153/2017, Article 86(1) of Law No. 303/2004, and Note No. 1 of Chapter I, Section A, Annex V to Law No. 153/2017, periods of prior service as a lawyer, court clerk with higher education, or judicial police officer with higher legal education—although counted as seniority in the magistracy under Article 86 of Law No. 303/2004—cannot be used as seniority in the position of judge, prosecutor, assimilated personnel, or assistant magistrate for the purpose of applying salary hierarchy coefficients and paying salary rights based on that seniority. The decision is binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, so the lower courts must apply this interpretation in the pending salary-rights disputes.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 86 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 303/2004, art. 86 din Legea nr. 303/2004, Art. 6 lit. b) și c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017, Nota nr. 1 din Cap. I lit. A al Anexei V la Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017, Art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Prior service in other legal roles cannot count for judicial salary grades; binding preliminary ruling issued: 153/2017, Article 86(1) of Law No. 303/2004, and Note No. 1 of Chapter I, Section A, Annex V to Law No. 153/2017, periods of prior service as a lawyer, court clerk with higher education, or judicial police officer with higher legal education—although counted as seniority in the magistracy under Article 86 of Law No. 303/2004—cannot be used as seniority in the position of judge, prosecutor, assimilated personnel, or assistant magistrate for the purpose of applying salary hierarchy coefficients and paying salary rights based on that seniority. The decision is binding pursuant to Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, so the lower courts must apply this interpretation in the pending salary-rights disputes.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial law seniority preliminary ruling procedure magistrate interpretation of a judgment preliminary decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 86 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 303/2004
Main ground for establishing the interpretation of the provisions in question.
art. 86 din Legea nr. 303/2004
153/2017 şi ale art. 86 alin.
Art. 6 lit. b) și c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017
Main ground for establishing the interpretation of the provisions in question.
Nota nr. 1 din Cap. I lit. A al Anexei V la Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017
Referenced for interpreting the provisions in relation to the annex.
Art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to declare the ruling binding.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 47/2025
Lawyer and court-clerk prior service cannot count as "seniority in office" for magistrate salary grading; preliminary referrals admitted.
Decizia nr. 5225/2013
Judge's prior non-judicial service cannot count as magistracy seniority for salary reclassification; ministerial orders upheld on reversal.
Decizia nr. 14/2026
Salary discrimination query over seniority pay brackets ruled inadmissible for preliminary ruling
Decizia nr. 2396/2020
Judicial seniority calculation: exclusion of pre-judicial legal advisory service from salary grade classification
Decizia nr. 732/2009
Eligibility of judicial trainees for senior salary coefficient despite prior magistracy service

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 6 lit. b) și c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017

Main ground for establishing the interpretation of the provisions in question.

Art. 86 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 303/2004

Main ground for establishing the interpretation of the provisions in question.

Nota nr. 1 din Cap. I lit. A al Anexei V la Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017

Referenced for interpreting the provisions in relation to the annex.

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

Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to declare the ruling binding.

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. 47 Dosar nr. 2287/1/2024

Ședința din 24 februarie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizările formulate de Tribunalul Galaţi – Secţia I civilă, Tribunalul Cluj – Secţia mixtă de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, de conflicte de muncă şi asigurări sociale şi Curtea de Apel Piteşti – Secţia I civilă şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea dispoziţiilor art. 6 lit. b) şi c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017 şi ale art. 86 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 303/2004, prin raportare la prevederile din Nota nr. 1 din Cap. I lit. A al Anexei V la Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017, perioada în care o persoană a desfăşurat activitatea în calitate de avocat, grefier cu studii superioare sau ofiţer de poliţie judiciară cu studii superioare juridice, care potrivit dispoziţiilor art. 86 din Legea nr. 303/2004 constituie vechime în magistratură, nu poate fi valorificată ca vechime în funcţia de judecător, procuror, personal asimilat acestora, magistrat asistent în vederea acordării coeficienţilor de ierarhizare şi plată a drepturilor salariale raportat la această vechime.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 24 februarie 2025.