High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 13 September 2021 the High Court of Review and Justice– Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each Case, considered five requests for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #55 in Case #1267/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Piteşti – Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case # 757/90/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
Interpretation of the provisions of Art. I, point 1 of Law No 71/2015 for the approval of Government Emergency Ordinance No 83/2014 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds in 2015, and other measures in the field of public expenditure, with reference to Art. 1 para. (51) of Government Emergency Ordinance No 83/2014 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds in 2015, as well as other measures in the field of public expenditure, on the equalization within the occupational family justice between the sectoral reference value given to probation advisors and that given to magistrates.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 13th of September 2021.
Decision #56 in Case #1269/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Oradea- Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case # 722/111/2020, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
1.If, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 27 in Government Ordinance No 137/2000, Art. 211 in Law No 62/2011 or Art. 268 in the Labor Code, the judicial staff who, being objectively unable to benefit and not having benefited from recognition of the wage entitlements established prior to the entry into force of Law No 330/2009, recognized in favor of other employees by court rulings prior to the entry into force of Law No 330/2009, are entitled to retroactive grant, from the date of entry into force of Law No 330/2009, of the salary rights established and recognized by the Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, given in the settlement of an appeal in the interests of Law No 7/2019, in favor of other employees who have pursued their activity under the same conditions.
2.In a case in which a statement of claim is made in which the defendants are required to pay compensation for acts of wage discrimination made by them, in their capacity as authorizing officers, for the period 01.01.2010 – 08.04.2015 and founded in law on the provisions of Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on prevention and punishment of all forms of discrimination, which of the legal texts regulating the course of the prescription of the substantive right to action is incident, namely: Art. 27 of Government Ordinance No 137/2000, Art. 211 (c) of Law No 62/2011 or Art.268 (1) (c) of the Labor Code?
3.If to the case are applicable the provisions of Art. 27 in Government Ordinance No 137/2000, the prescription term shall run from the moment when the act of discrimination is produced (payment made in a discriminatory manner pursuant to court rulings in the period 2006 to 2009, the operative part of which were clarified in the course of 2019 following the judgment of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in an appeal in the interests of Law No 7/2019), date of publication of Decision No 7/2019 or from the moment when the salary differences were due to be paid month by month?
4.If the publication of Decision No 7/2019 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law is the objective point at which it begins to run the prescription term of the substantive right to an action for the purpose of compensation representing the difference between the actual compensation received and the compensation resulting from the application of increases to the sectoral reference value (SRV), as provided for in Art. 1 of Government Ordinance No 10/2007 (5 %, 2 % and 11 %) and the application of the multiplier 19,000 (differences in salary rights from the compensation of the prosecutors D.N.A. and D.I.I.C.O.T. – Government Emergency Ordinance no. 27/2006), for the period 01.01.2010-08.04.2015, the legal cause of the action being the discriminatory act committed in 2019 by the authorizing officer?
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 13th of September 2021.
Decision #57 in Case #1350/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Tribunal Galaţi- Chamber I for Civil Matters, in Case #4188/324/2019, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
The interpretation and application of the provisions of the second sentence of Art.706 (1) in the Code of Civil procedure, for the purposes of determining whether the prescription term of 10 years also applies to the prescription of the right to obtain forced execution of a mortgage contract, concluded under the 1864 Civil Code regime, in order to guarantee a payment obligation arising from a credit agreement, for which it was found that the right to request forced execution had been prescribed.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 13th of September 2021.
Decision #58 in Case #1481/1/2021
Denies as inadmissible the request brought by the Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VII for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in Case #30113/3/2008, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:
Interpretation of the provisions of the first sentence of Article 63 para. (12) of Decree No 240/2020 on the extension of the state of emergency in the territory of Romania, in the sense of whether this applies also to the obsolescence term in progress at the time of the establishment/extension of the state of emergency.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 13th of September 2021.
Decision #59 in Case #1638/1/2021
Sustains the request from Court of Appeals Craiova – Chamber for Labor Conflicts and Social Insurance, in Case #4308/63/2020, and establishes the following:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of Art.207 para. (2) and (3) in Law No 95/2006 correlated with the provisions of Article 31 para. (8) in Frame-Law No 153/2017 and Article 10 in Annex No II, Chapter II in the same Law, as well as to the provisions of Art. 41 of the Frame-Regulation approved by Government Decision No 286/2011, the assignment of nurses who have completed short-term post-secondary or higher health studies in a specialized clinical field who have acquired the principal degree and, subsequently, have completed higher education as a nurse responsible for general care or as a midwifery in the position corresponding to the higher education they have completed, subject to the conditions of Article 207 para. (2) and (3) of Law No 95/2006, is acting in law and is not subject to the fulfillment of other requirements for promotion in office, that is to be entered in the staff expenditure approved in the budget in accordance with Article 31(8) of Frame-Law No 153/2017 and to convert the position to a position corresponding to the higher education completed, in accordance with the conditions of Art. 10 of Annex No II, Chapter II of Frame-Law No 153/2017 and Article 41 of the Frame-Regulation approved by Government Decision No 286/2011.
Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 13th of September 2021.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.