Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_225817 AI generated

Admissibility of court-ordered pension revision without prior administrative request; public order nature of missing revision application

Case Number ICCJ_225817
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 connected referrals filed by the Court of Appeal Pitești, thereby leaving the lower court's procedural standing unchanged and preventing a binding interpretation of the legal questions submitted. The dispute involved civil litigation concerning public pension rights, specifically addressing whether a civil court could order the revision of pension entitlements without a prior request addressed to the pension institution, and whether the absence of such a request constitutes a matter of public order that could be invoked ex officio on appeal. The decisive legal basis for the inadmissibility of the referrals was the procedural framework governing the resolution of legal questions under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which rendered the specific queries regarding the interpretation of Article 107(1) of Law No. 263/2010 regarding the unified public pension system non-admissible at this juncture.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 107 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 263/2010, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Admissibility of court-ordered pension revision without prior administrative request; public order nature of missing revision application: The dispute involved civil litigation concerning public pension rights, specifically addressing whether a civil court could order the revision of pension entitlements without a prior request addressed to the pension institution, and whether the absence of such a request constitutes a matter of public order that could be invoked ex officio on appeal. The decisive legal basis for the inadmissibility of the referrals was the procedural framework governing the resolution of legal questions under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which rendered the specific queries regarding the interpretation of Article 107(1) of Law No. 263/2010 regarding the unified public pension system non-admissible at this juncture.

Keywords

AI generated
pension revision public-law pension institution referral order matter in dispute application for revision standing to appeal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 107 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 263/2010
a) În interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 107 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 263/2010 privind sistemul unitar de pensii publice, poate instanţa de judecată să dispună revizuirea drepturilor de pensie, în absenţa unei cereri în acest sens adresată anterior casei de pensii?
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to determine the mandatory nature of the decision regarding the dismissal of the referrals.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 279/2025
Pension revision referral dismissed as inadmissible for failing to specify legal provisions and case relevance
Decizia nr. 151/2025
Admissibility of preliminary referral on pension revision for non-public-sector employees under Emergency Ordinance 62/2024
ICCJ_188378
Pension contribution period revision query deemed inadmissible for preliminary ruling.
Decizia nr. 1131/2020
Inadmissibility of cassation appeal against final revision decision in pension dispute
Decizia nr. 1080/2014
Pension revision request dismissed as inadmissible against prior revision ruling

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Procedural basis cited in the dispositive to determine the mandatory nature of the decision regarding the dismissal of the referrals.

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. 151 Dosar nr. 2650/1/2024

Ședința din 5 mai 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibile, sesizările conexate formulate de Curtea de Apel Piteşti – Secţia I civilă, în dosarele nr. 4602/109/2023, nr. 4807/109/2023, nr. 4746/109/2023, nr. 4909/109/2023, privind dezlegarea următoarelor chestiuni de drept:

a) În interpretarea dispoziţiilor art. 107 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 263/2010 privind sistemul unitar de pensii publice, poate instanţa de judecată să dispună revizuirea drepturilor de pensie, în absenţa unei cereri în acest sens adresată anterior casei de pensii?

b) În situaţia unui răspuns negativ, lipsa unei cereri de revizuire adresate casei de pensii reprezintă o chestiune de ordine publică, de natură a fi invocată din oficiu în apel?

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 5 mai 2025.