High Court of Cassation and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 15 November 2021 the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each Case, considered four appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:
Decision #23 in Case #2318/1/2021
Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and consequently establishes that:
In the uniform interpretation and application of art. 38 para. 1 in Government Ordinance No 64/2006 on remuneration and other rights of civil servants with special status in the prison administration system, approved with amendments by Law No 462/2006, with subsequent amendments and art. 150 para. 1 and 2 in Law No 53/2003 – Labor Code, republished, as amended and supplemented, when establishing the monetary rights to prison guards for the period of rest leave, it should be taken into account the bonuses for heavy working conditions, harmful or dangerous they have received during their period of service, corresponding to the time worked in the places of work concerned.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of November 2021.
Decision #24 in Case #2453/1/2021
Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Bucharest and consequently establishes that:
In the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 5 para. 1 and art. 8 in Annex I, Chapter I letter B in Framework Law No 153/2017 on the payroll of staff paid from public funds, as amended and supplemented, the teaching staff shall be entitled to a merit gradation or an increase of head teacher from the date on which the basic salary is determined in accordance with the annexs in this law, that is the date on which the basic salary becomes equal to or greater than that established in accordance with the law for 2022.
Until that time, from 1 January 2019, these rights will be taken into account in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 para. 41 of the framework law No 153/2017, by applying them to the basic salary provided for by the law for 2022 less the basic salary for december 2018 for the determination of the installments of the increase.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of November 2021.
Decision #25 in Case #2469/1/2021
Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the Collegiate Management Body of the Court of Appeals Iaşi and consequently establishes that:
In the interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 166 in the Methodological norms for the implementation of the provisions on the award of the public procurement contract/framework agreement in Law No 98/2016 on public procurement, approved by Government Decision No 395/2016, as amended and supplemented and of the provisions of Article 971 in Government Decision No 925/2006 for the approval of the implementing norms for the provisions on the award of public contracts in Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006 on the award of public contracts, public works concession contracts and service concession contracts, as amended and supplemented in accordance with art. 2 para. 1 letter c in Administrative Court Law No 554/2004, as amended, jurisdiction for the settlement of disputes for the annulment of the document establishing the finding which contains information on the failure of the contract by the associate contractor/contractor and any damage to the contract shall lie with the civil court, under the terms of art. 53 para. 11 in Law No 101/2016 on remedies and appeals for the award of public procurement, sectoral contracts and works and service concession contracts, as well as for the organization and functioning of the National Board of Solving Complaints, with subsequent amendments and supplements, and of art. 8 para. 2 in Administrative Court Law No 554/2004, as amended and supplemented.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of November 2021.
Decision #26 in Case #2382/1/2021
Sustains the appeal in the interes of the law brought by the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and consequently establishes that:
In the uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of art. 13 para.1 letter a in Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2002, the offense of abuse of office provided for in art. 132 in Law No 78/2000 in relation to art. 297 in the Criminal Code, which caused material damage of less than or equal to the equivalent in lei of 200.000 euro committed by a person whose quality does not determine the effect of the provisions of art. 13 para. 1 letter b in Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2002, is the competence of the non-specialized prosecutor’s office, and not the National Anti-corruption Directorate.
The provisions of art. 13 para. 1 letter a second sentence in Government Emergency Ordinance No 43/2002, relating to the value of the amount or of the property which is the object of the corruption offense, are not incident in the case of the offense of abuse of office provided for in art. 132 in Law No 78/2000 in relation to Article 297 in the Criminal Code.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 15th of November 2021.
After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.