Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_228133 AI generated

Police officer job placement prerogatives and budgetary constraints under Statute and Public Finance Law

Case Number ICCJ_228133
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 preliminary question referral submitted by the Cluj County Court regarding the interpretation of police officer placement rules. The dispute concerned whether a human resources manager has the prerogative to assign police officers to execution functions equivalent to or up to three steps above their professional rank, and whether such assignments are contingent upon budgetary allocations and the existence of the position within the employing institution under the Public Finance Law. The Court rejected the request to clarify the interplay between Article 9, Article 21, and Article 22 of the Police Officer Statute Law and Article 47 of the Public Finance Law, thereby refusing to establish a binding legal interpretation on these specific administrative and fiscal constraints for police career advancement.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 47 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 500/2002, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Police officer job placement prerogatives and budgetary constraints under Statute and Public Finance Law: The dispute concerned whether a human resources manager has the prerogative to assign police officers to execution functions equivalent to or up to three steps above their professional rank, and whether such assignments are contingent upon budgetary allocations and the existence of the position within the employing institution under the Public Finance Law. The Court rejected the request to clarify the interplay between Article 9, Article 21, and Article 22 of the Police Officer Statute Law and Article 47 of the Public Finance Law, thereby refusing to establish a binding legal interpretation on these specific administrative and fiscal constraints for police career advancement.

Keywords

AI generated
police officer public job placement fiscal law public-law institution professional career interpretation of the law

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 47 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 500/2002
360/2002 privind Statutul poliţistului, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, coroborat cu art. 47 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 500/2002 privind finanţele publice, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, rezultă că:
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited as the basis establishing that the decision resolving the preliminary question is obligatory and binding.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 304/2025
Police officer salary upon placement at disposal: scope of application and normative basis for minimum position salary calculation
ICCJ_229364
Police salary for personnel at disposal: applicability of Framework Law Annex VI vs. Status Law and reference grade determination
Decizia nr. 4625/2018
Jurisdiction over public service recruitment disputes: applicability of Civil Code vs. Administrative Law to police officer appointment
Decizia nr. 4025/2015
Competence to hear police officer salary and seniority claims: application of public official status law over general civil procedure
Decizia nr. 462/2011
Applicability of public sector salary indexation norms to police officers under special status

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited as the basis establishing that the decision resolving the preliminary question is obligatory and 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. 275 Dosar nr. 3009/1/2024

Şedinţa din 30 iunie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Cluj - Secţia mixtă de contencios administrativ şi fiscal, de conflicte de muncă şi asigurări sociale, în dosarul nr. 2803/117/2023, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarea chestiune de drept:

Dacă, din interpretarea art. 9 alin. (22) şi alin. (3), art. 21 alin. (8), art. 22 alin. (4) şi alin. (42) din Legea nr. 360/2002 privind Statutul poliţistului, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, coroborat cu art. 47 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 500/2002 privind finanţele publice, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, rezultă că:

a) se oferă o prerogativă şefului cu competenţă de gestiune a resurselor umane de a decide încadrarea (atât la angajare, cât şi la definitivare) poliţistului în funcţii de execuţie fie echivalente cu gradul profesional deţinut, fie mai mari cu cel mult trei trepte faţă de gradul deţinut de acesta?

b) încadrarea în funcţiile superioare de execuţie, cu cel mult trei trepte depinde de alocaţiile bugetare, conform art. 47 alin. (3) din Legea nr. 500/2002, respectiv de existenţa funcţiei superioare în cadrul instituţiei angajatoare?

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

Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 30 iunie 2025.