High Court of Review and Justice

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

In its session of 28 September 2020, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for the Clarification of Certain Points of Law in Civil Matters, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered four requests for preliminary ruling for the clarification of certain points of law, and returned the following Judgments:

 

Judgment #56 in case #1434/1/2020

            Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber VII for Labor Disputes and Social Insurance, in case # 971/87/2018, for a preliminary ruling on the following point of law:

            What is the interpretation of the phrase “on request from the interested party” in Art. 142 para. (2) in the Law of Social Dialogue #62/2011, as republished, amended and supplemented; does it refer only to the signatory parties of the collective bargaining contract or can any employee distinctly request a finding of nullity.

            Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

            Returned in public session today, 28 September 2020.

Judgment #57 in case #1518/1/2020

 

Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Bucharest – Chamber V Civil Matters, in case # 7007/94/2017, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:

In interpreting Art. 158 para. (1) in the Civil Procedure Code, in the situation where the domicile is selected as the head office of a private legal practice is it necessary to indicate the individual responsible for accepting procedural documents served at that address?

Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, 28 September 2020.

 

Judgment #58 in case #1519/1/2020

 

Denies as inadmissible the request from Court of Appeals Iaşi – Chamber for Labor Disputes and Social Insurance, in case # 2069/89/2019, for a preliminary ruling in clarifying the following point of law:

In the interpretation and application of Art. 198 and Art. 200 in the Law of Social Dialogue #62/2011, as republished, amended and supplemented, corroborated with Art. 35 in the Civil Procedure Code, is an employer’s legal action to have a strike declared unlawful, specifically a warning strike, inadmissible if filed after the strike started?

Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, 28 September 2020.

 

Judgment #59 in case #1626/1/2020

 

Sustains the request from the Court of Appeals Craiova – Chamber I Civil matters in case # 6280/63/2019 for a preliminary ruling and consequently rules that:

Pay rights owed for medical staff when performing on-call duty outside the legal working week and working hours for the base position, based on a part-time labor contract, are included in the category of the elements of the salary system which, under the law, serve to calculate the monthly pre-tax salary, so that based on Art. 34 para. (2) in Government Emergency Order #114/2018, as of 1 January 2019 their amount shall stay no higher than the level of the December 2018 pay, as under the legal stipulations applicable for January 2018 based on Art. 38 para. (3) letter h) in Framework Law #153/2017, insofar as the staff continue to fill the same position and perform their work in the same conditions.

Obligatory, as under Art. 521 para. (3) in the Civil Procedure Code.

Returned in public session today, 28 September 2020.

 

After the justification is written and the Judgment signed it shall be published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I.

 

OFFICE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND RELATIONS