Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_223232 AI generated

Discretionary vs. mandatory interpretation of "may retain" and "may grant" in public wage and bonus legislation

Case Number ICCJ_223232
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 referral for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Timișoara Court of Appeal, leaving the question of the interpretation of specific statutory phrasings unresolved at this level. The dispute concerned whether the terms "may retain" under Emergency Ordinance No. 116/2017 and "may grant" under the Framework Law No. 153/2017 create a discretionary faculty for the hiring authority or, conversely, stipulate a substantive right to receive the bonuses and a correlative obligation for the institution to pay them. The decision was based on the procedural requirements for referrals under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which resulted in the rejection of the request to clarify the mandatory versus optional nature of these budgetary and wage-related provisions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Discretionary vs. mandatory interpretation of "may retain" and "may grant" in public wage and bonus legislation: The dispute concerned whether the terms "may retain" under Emergency Ordinance No. 116/2017 and "may grant" under the Framework Law No. 153/2017 create a discretionary faculty for the hiring authority or, conversely, stipulate a substantive right to receive the bonuses and a correlative obligation for the institution to pay them. The decision was based on the procedural requirements for referrals under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which resulted in the rejection of the request to clarify the mandatory versus optional nature of these budgetary and wage-related provisions.

Keywords

AI generated
law of obligations statutory right interpretation of the law preliminary ruling procedure substantive requirements preliminary decision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the operative order as the procedural basis for the decision, indicating the binding nature of the judgment issued by the Court.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 77/2025
Preliminary referral on bonus discretion for public-sector employees inadmissible for lack of genuine legal question
Decizia nr. 4886/2009
Discretionary nature of public sector performance bonuses under Romanian labor regulations
Decizia nr. 2742/2010
Discretionary nature of public servant stimulents and strict non-repetition requirements for annulment appeals
Decizia nr. 292/2025
Preliminary ruling referral on pay allowance for public servants held inadmissible as law clear under binding case law
Decizia nr. 5615/2022
Anulability of ministerial order defining eligibility for continuity-of-duty salary bonuses and interpretation of statutory delegation to public institutions

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the operative order as the procedural basis for the decision, indicating the binding nature of the judgment issued by the 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. 77 Dosar nr. 2340/1/2024

Ședința din 3 martie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Timişoara – Secţia de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în dosarul nr. 960/115/2022*, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile pentru dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

Dacă sintagmele „poate reţine”, din cuprinsul dispoziţiilor art. 1 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 116/2017 privind unele măsuri bugetare şi pentru modificarea Legii nr. 263/2010 privind sistemul unitar de pensii publice, aprobată prin Legea nr. 267/2018, respectiv „pot acorda” din cuprinsul dispoziţiilor art. 26 din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017 privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice,cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, se interpretează în sensul că indică o facultate, respectiv o simplă posibilitate lăsată la aprecierea autorităţii angajatoare sau stipulează dreptul celor vizaţi de respectivele articole şi, respectiv, obligaţia corelativă a instituţiilor abilitate de a stabili şi plăti premiile prevăzute la art. 2 din Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 116/2017.

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică, astăzi, 3 martie 2025.