Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_235035 AI generated

Timing of pension resumption and suspension for female public officials opting for male retirement age

Case Number ICCJ_235035
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, sitting as the Chamber for Resolving Issues of Law, rejected as inadmissible the reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Brăila County Court. The dispute concerned the interpretation of public pension law provisions, specifically determining the effective date from which a female public official could resume pension payments after opting to continue service until the male retirement age, while simultaneously requesting the suspension of a previously granted age-limit pension. The reference sought clarification on the interplay between the old pension legislation (Law 263/2010) and the new pension legislation (Law 360/2023), particularly regarding the suspension and resumption of benefits for public servants extending their career. The court’s decision is obligatory for the referring court under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, meaning the referring court must proceed with the case applying its own interpretation of the cited norms, as the preliminary question was not accepted for adjudication.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 115 alin. (1) lit. d) din Legea nr. 263/2010, art. 102 alin. (1) lit. k) din Legea nr. 360/2023, art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă; Timing of pension resumption and suspension for female public officials opting for male retirement age: The dispute concerned the interpretation of public pension law provisions, specifically determining the effective date from which a female public official could resume pension payments after opting to continue service until the male retirement age, while simultaneously requesting the suspension of a previously granted age-limit pension. The reference sought clarification on the interplay between the old pension legislation (Law 263/2010) and the new pension legislation (Law 360/2023), particularly regarding the suspension and resumption of benefits for public servants extending their career. The court’s decision is obligatory for the referring court under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, meaning the referring court must proceed with the case applying its own interpretation of the cited norms, as the preliminary question was not accepted for adjudication.

Keywords

AI generated
suspension of pension public official public-law benefit old-age benefit effects of a preliminary ruling Civil Procedure Code

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 115 alin. (1) lit. d) din Legea nr. 263/2010
(4) şi art. 115 alin. (1) lit. d) din Legea nr. 263/2010 privind sistemul public de pensii, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, respectiv ale art.
art. 102 alin. (1) lit. k) din Legea nr. 360/2023
art. 521 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the decision on the referring court.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 72/2026
Pension suspension during continued public service: retroactive reinstatement vs. termination of civil service by pension decision
ICCJ_226586
Simultaneous pension claim and continued public service until male retirement age (65) for female officials
Decizia nr. 176/2025
Simultaneous pension claim and continued public service until male retirement age: inadmissibility of preliminary ruling on clear administrative code provisions
ICCJ_237637
Timing of pension resumption after claimant-requested suspension without employment termination under Law 360/2023
ICCJ_220666
Automatic termination of public service upon pension issuance despite requested pension payment suspension

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

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

Cited in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the decision on the referring court.

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. 72 Dosar nr. 593/1/2026

Ședința din 18 mai 2026

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Respinge, ca inadmisibilă, sesizarea formulată de Tribunalul Brăila – Secția I civilă, în dosarul nr. 767/113/2025, în vederea pronunțării unei hotărâri prealabile cu privire la următoarea chestiune de drept:

Interpretarea dispozițiilor art. 114 alin. (4) şi art. 115 alin. (1) lit. d) din Legea nr. 263/2010 privind sistemul public de pensii, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, respectiv ale art. 101 alin. (5) şi art. 102 alin. (1) lit. k) din Legea nr. 360/2023 privind sistemul public de pensii, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare, în sensul de a se stabili care este momentul de la care se poate dispune reluarea plății pensiei cuvenite funcționarului public femeie, care optează pentru continuarea raportului de serviciu până la împlinirea vârstei de pensionare prevăzute de lege pentru bărbați, solicitând în acelaşi timp suspendarea plății pensiei pentru limită de vârstă anterior acordată prin decizie de pensionare emisă în conformitate cu dispozițiile Legii nr. 263/2010.

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

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 18 mai 2026.