Exclusion of civil procedure and civil code time-computation rules from labor law notice periods
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the appeal in the interest of the law filed by the Ombudsman, establishing a uniform binding interpretation that the notice period for employment termination begins to run from the day following the communication of the notification and expires on the last day of the period, thereby reversing any contrary lower court rulings. The case addressed a procedural and substantive dispute regarding the calculation of statutory notice periods in labor law, specifically whether civil procedural and civil law norms on the computation of time periods apply to labor relations. The Court decisively held that Article 181(1) point 2 and Article 181(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as Article 2.553(1) of the Civil Code, are inapplicable to this calculation, relying on the mandatory principles of uniform interpretation found in Articles 75(1) and 278(1) of the Labor Code and the binding effect provisions of Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedart. 75 alin. (1) și art. 278 alin. (1) din Codul muncii, art. 2.553 alin. (1) din Codul civil, art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; Exclusion of civil procedure and civil code time-computation rules from labor law notice periods: The case addressed a procedural and substantive dispute regarding the calculation of statutory notice periods in labor law, specifically whether civil procedural and civil law norms on the computation of time periods apply to labor relations. The Court decisively held that Article 181(1) point 2 and Article 181(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as Article 2.553(1) of the Civil Code, are inapplicable to this calculation, relying on the mandatory principles of uniform interpretation found in Articles 75(1) and 278(1) of the Labor Code and the binding effect provisions of Article 517(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedKey legal questions extracted by Legislator
AI generatedMain ground for the verdict, as the court establishes the uniform interpretation and application of these provisions regarding the calculation of the notice period.
Procedural rule explicitly cited to determine that these provisions are not applicable to the calculation of the notice period.
Substantive rule explicitly cited to determine that this provision is not applicable to the calculation of the notice period.
Procedural rule applied in the dispositive to establish the binding nature of the decision.
Full text
ROMÂNIA
ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE
Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii
Minuta deciziei nr. 8 Dosar nr. 471/1/2024
Şedinţa din 20 mai 2024
ÎN NUMELE LEGII
DECIDE: Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Avocatul Poporului și, în consecință, stabilește că: În interpretarea și aplicarea unitară a dispozițiilor art. 75 alin. (1) și art. 278 alin. (1) din Codul muncii, termenul de preaviz începe să curgă din ziua următoare comunicării notificării de preaviz şi se împlineşte în ultima zi a termenului, dispozițiile art. 181 alin. (1) pct. 2 și alin. (2) din Codul de procedură civilă, precum și cele ale art. 2.553 alin. (1) din Codul civil nefiind aplicabile. Obligatorie, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă. Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 20 mai 2024.