Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_228018 AI generated

Non-discrimination principle in public sector wages: differential statute of limitations within the same occupational family

Case Number ICCJ_228018
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, in its Plenary for Resolving Issues of Law, admitted two connected referrals from the Bucharest Court of Appeal to issue a mandatory preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Romanian public sector wage legislation. The dispute concerned whether the establishment of salary rights for one segment of a specific occupational family, while finding the general statute of limitations to have expired for another segment of the same family, constitutes a violation of the non-discrimination principle. Relying on Articles 6(a), (b), and (c) of Framework Law No. 153/2017, Article 2.517 of the Civil Code, and Article 171 of the Labor Code regarding the general statute of limitations, the Court ruled that such differential treatment does not violate the principle of non-discrimination.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 6 lit. a), b) şi c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017, art. 2.517 din Codul civil, art. 171 din Codul muncii, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Non-discrimination principle in public sector wages: differential statute of limitations within the same occupational family: The dispute concerned whether the establishment of salary rights for one segment of a specific occupational family, while finding the general statute of limitations to have expired for another segment of the same family, constitutes a violation of the non-discrimination principle. Relying on Articles 6(a), (b), and (c) of Framework Law No. 153/2017, Article 2.517 of the Civil Code, and Article 171 of the Labor Code regarding the general statute of limitations, the Court ruled that such differential treatment does not violate the principle of non-discrimination.

Keywords

AI generated
public employment law statute of limitations principle of equality and non-discrimination right of establishment interpretation of the law civil dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 6 lit. a), b) şi c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017
Substantive legal basis cited to resolve the issue of non-discrimination in public sector wages.
art. 2.517 din Codul civil
Provision regarding the general statute of limitations applied in the preliminary ruling.
art. 171 din Codul muncii
Provision concerning the statute of limitations for labor rights cited in the ruling.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Procedural rule establishing that the decision is mandatory for all courts.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 215/2025
Binding ruling: General limitation period applies to salary recalibration claims despite non-discrimination principle
Decizia nr. 2420/2023
Retroactive payment of public sector wage differentials barred by statute of limitations following administrative recognition of rights
Decizia nr. 5090/2023
Salary differential claims and the effect of administrative recognition on the statute of limitations for labor credits.
Decizia nr. 86/2024
Whether specialized salary benefits for court IT specialists violate the non-discrimination principle for other auxiliary judicial staff
Decizia nr. 321/2024
Application of three-year statute of limitations to salary differential back-pay claims in administrative acts

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 6 lit. a), b) şi c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017

Substantive legal basis cited to resolve the issue of non-discrimination in public sector wages.

art. 2.517 din Codul civil

Provision regarding the general statute of limitations applied in the preliminary ruling.

art. 171 din Codul muncii

Provision concerning the statute of limitations for labor rights cited in the ruling.

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

Procedural rule establishing that the decision is mandatory for all courts.

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. 215 Dosar nr. 297/1/2025

Ședința din 16 iunie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite sesizările conexate formulate de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti - Secţia a IX-a, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal în dosarele nr. 8074/2/2023 şi nr. 7316/2/2023, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile.

În interpretarea şi aplicarea dispoziţiilor art. 6 lit. a), b) şi c) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017 privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice raportat la art. 2.517 din Codul civil şi art. 171 din Codul muncii referitoare la termenul legal general de prescripţie, stabileşte că:

Nu se poate constata încălcarea principiului nediscriminării prin stabilirea dreptului la plata drepturilor salariale pentru o parte a aceleiaşi familii ocupaţionale, cu constatarea împlinirii termenului general de prescripţie pentru o altă parte a aceleiaşi familii ocupaţionale.

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 16 iunie 2025.