Salary rights reference value referral inadmissible; magistrates' discrimination claims left unresolved
Romania (RO)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed as inadmissible the referral from the Brăila Tribunal seeking a preliminary ruling, thereby refusing to answer the two questions posed; no substantive ruling was issued, and the prior proceedings remain unaffected. The case involved a request for clarification on whether salary rights granted by administrative acts to certain employees in the budgetary occupational family "Justice," using a specific sectoral reference value (605.225 lei unplafoned), constitute damages claimable by magistrates lacking a similar administrative act under Article 27(1) of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on anti-discrimination, and whether such actions are subject to the limitation rules of Articles 171 and 268(1)(c) of the Labor Code or the term in Article 27(2) of the same ordinance. The court based its decision on procedural inadmissibility, as the referral did not meet the requirements for a preliminary ruling under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, without addressing the substantive legal merits of the questions.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedart. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Salary rights reference value referral inadmissible; magistrates' discrimination claims left unresolved: The case involved a request for clarification on whether salary rights granted by administrative acts to certain employees in the budgetary occupational family "Justice," using a specific sectoral reference value (605.225 lei unplafoned), constitute damages claimable by magistrates lacking a similar administrative act under Article 27(1) of Government Ordinance No. 137/2000 on anti-discrimination, and whether such actions are subject to the limitation rules of Articles 171 and 268(1)(c) of the Labor Code or the term in Article 27(2) of the same ordinance. The court based its decision on procedural inadmissibility, as the referral did not meet the requirements for a preliminary ruling under Article 521(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, without addressing the substantive legal merits of the questions.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedBasis for declaring the referral inadmissible and making the decision binding.
Full text
ROMÂNIA
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE
Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept
Minuta deciziei nr. 421 Dosar nr. 1537/1/2025
Ședința din 24 noiembrie 2025
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
DECIDE:
Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Brăila - Secţia I civilă, în dosarul nr. 2504/113/2024, în vederea pronunțării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarele chestiuni de drept:
a) Dacă drepturile salariale acordate prin acte administrative unor angajaţi din cadrul familiei ocupaţionale de funcţii bugetare „Justiţie”, prin utilizarea unui anumit cuantum al valorii de referinţă sectorială (605,225 lei neplafonat), au natura juridică a unor despăgubiri ce pot fi pretinse de magistraţii pentru care ordonatorul principal de credite nu a emis un act administrativ similar, în temeiul unei acţiuni întemeiate pe art. 27 alin. (1) din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 137/2000 privind prevenirea şi sancţionarea tuturor formelor de discriminare, republicată, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare?
b) Dacă acţiunile astfel formulate de magistraţi sunt supuse regulilor privind prescripţia prevăzute de art. 171 şi art. 268 alin. (1) lit. c) din Codul muncii sau termenului prevăzut de art. 27 alin. (2) din Ordonanţa Guvernului nr. 137/2000?
Obligatorie, potrivit art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă.
Pronunţată în şedinţă publică astăzi, 24 noiembrie 2025.