Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_228036 AI generated

Public servant legal adviser salary classification referral ruled inadmissible

Case Number ICCJ_228036
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 (Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie) dismissed as inadmissible the referral from the Sibiu Tribunal for a preliminary ruling on a legal question, leaving the underlying dispute unresolved and the referral inoperative. The question, arising in an administrative and fiscal case, asked whether a public servant legal adviser (consilier juridic) within a military unit subordinate to the Joint Logistics Command holds a state or territorial public office, and thus which annex provisions of Framework Law No. 153/2017 (Annex 8, Chapter I, Section A, point I(d) or II(b)) apply for salary purposes, under Articles 2, 7(1), and 31(1) of Law No. 346/2006. The court found the referral inadmissible, likely because the condition for admissibility—that the legal issue be new and likely to arise in multiple cases—was not met, and accordingly did not rule on the substantive classification of the office or the applicable salary annex.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 31 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 346/2006, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Public servant legal adviser salary classification referral ruled inadmissible: The question, arising in an administrative and fiscal case, asked whether a public servant legal adviser (consilier juridic) within a military unit subordinate to the Joint Logistics Command holds a state or territorial public office, and thus which annex provisions of Framework Law No. 153/2017 (Annex 8, Chapter I, Section A, point I(d) or II(b)) apply for salary purposes, under Articles 2, 7(1), and 31(1) of Law No. 346/2006. The court found the referral inadmissible, likely because the condition for admissibility—that the legal issue be new and likely to arise in multiple cases—was not met, and accordingly did not rule on the substantive classification of the office or the applicable salary annex.

Keywords

AI generated
legal adviser salary classification fiscal law rule of law administrative units employment in the public service

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 31 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 346/2006
(1) şi art. 31 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 346/2006, funcţionarul public consilier juridic din cadrul unei unităţi militare aflate în subordinea Comandamentului Logistic Întrunit ocupă o funcţie publică de stat sau teritorială şi, în consecinţă, dacă îi sunt aplicabile prevederile din Anexa 8, Cap.
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Makes the decision binding according to the Code of Civil Procedure.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 233/2025
Preliminary referral on military legal adviser's public office classification ruled inadmissible as interpretive question.
ICCJ_232188
Classification allowance ruling for civil servant quashed as inadmissible preliminary referral
Decizia nr. 177/2025
Inadmissibility of preliminary referrals for military salary recalculation due to failure to identify a distinct legal question
ICCJ_230722
Preliminary ruling referral inadmissible; salary-grade question on public servant transfer left unresolved.
ICCJ_224987
Military prosecutor's base salary reference value referral dismissed as inadmissible

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Makes the decision binding according to the Code of Civil Procedure.

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. 233 Dosar nr. 2900/1/2024

Ședința din 16 iunie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge ca inadmisibilă sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Sibiu – Secţia a II-a civilă, de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, în dosarul nr. 111/85/2023, pentru pronunţarea unei hotărâri prealabile privind dezlegarea următoarei chestiuni de drept:

„Dacă, prin interpretarea prevederilor art. 2, art. 7 alin. (1) şi art. 31 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 346/2006, funcţionarul public consilier juridic din cadrul unei unităţi militare aflate în subordinea Comandamentului Logistic Întrunit ocupă o funcţie publică de stat sau teritorială şi, în consecinţă, dacă îi sunt aplicabile prevederile din Anexa 8, Cap. I, lit. A, pct. I, lit. d) sau din Anexa 8, Cap. I, lit. A, pct. II, lit. b) din Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017”.

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 16 iunie 2025.