Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_230719 AI generated

Pension benefit recovery challenged as disproportionate property burden; referral declared inadmissible

Case Number ICCJ_230719
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 request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Bacău Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of pension recovery regulations. The dispute centered on whether the statutory provisions mandating the recovery of unduly received social insurance benefits imposed an excessive burden on insured individuals, thereby violating their right to protection of property under Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically in cases where the beneficiary did not act in bad faith or with intent to deceive the pension house. The Court ruled that the referral was procedurally inadmissible, leaving the lower court to resolve the matter without a binding preclusive interpretation from the supreme court. The decisive legal basis involved the procedural requirements for referral under the Civil Procedure Code and the substantive compatibility of the public pension system's recovery mechanisms with fundamental constitutional and international human rights standards.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 179 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 263/2010; Pension benefit recovery challenged as disproportionate property burden; referral declared inadmissible: The dispute centered on whether the statutory provisions mandating the recovery of unduly received social insurance benefits imposed an excessive burden on insured individuals, thereby violating their right to protection of property under Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically in cases where the beneficiary did not act in bad faith or with intent to deceive the pension house. The Court ruled that the referral was procedurally inadmissible, leaving the lower court to resolve the matter without a binding preclusive interpretation from the supreme court. The decisive legal basis involved the procedural requirements for referral under the Civil Procedure Code and the substantive compatibility of the public pension system's recovery mechanisms with fundamental constitutional and international human rights standards.

Keywords

AI generated
pension rights social insurance dispute recovery of property right to property statutory benefit property insurance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 179 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 263/2010
(2) teza a doua (“se recuperează”) şi/sau ale art. 179 alin.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 417/2025
Pension recovery for unduly paid benefits and compatibility of statutory restitution provisions with the right to property under ECHR Protocol No. 1
Decizia nr. 220/2025
Referral for preliminary ruling inadmissible: scope of "legal issue" in public sector pension restitution cases involving inflation adjustment and penal interest
Decizia nr. 11/2024
Survivor's pension claim referral dismissed as inadmissible; statutory interpretation left to trial court.
ICCJ_144240
Admissibility of supreme court referral on timing of pension overpayment recovery under Law 263/2010
Decizia nr. 1307/2017
Pension deduction challenge: appeal held inadmissible after prior appeal was time-barred.

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. 417 Dosar nr. 1488/1/2025

Ședința din 24 noiembrie 2025

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Curtea de Apel Bacău – Secţia I civilă, în dosarul nr. 853/103/2024, în vederea pronunţării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarea chestiune de drept:

„Dispoziţiile art. 107 alin. (2) teza a doua (“se recuperează”) şi/sau ale art. 179 alin. (1) din Legea nr. 263/2010 privind sistemul unitar de pensii publice, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, care reglementează emiterea deciziilor de recuperare a sumelor încasate necuvenit cu titlu de prestaţii de asigurări sociale, se interpretează în sensul că impun prin ele însele (în abstract) o sarcină excesivă asiguraţilor, fiind astfel incompatibile cu art. 1 din Protocolul nr. 1 la Convenţia pentru apărarea drepturilor omului şi a libertăţilor fundamentale, în cazul în care beneficiarul prestaţiilor nu a întreprins vreo acţiune cu intenţia de a induce în eroare casa de pensii sau nu a acţionat cu rea-credinţă atunci când a depus cererea de pensionare?”

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 24 noiembrie 2025.