Press release – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law in its session of 7 December 2020
High Court of Review and Justice
PRESS RELEASE
In its session of 7 December 2020, the High Court of Review and Justice – Panel for Appeals in the interest of the Law, lawfully established in each of the cases, considered two appeals in the interest of the law and returned the following Judgments:
Judgment #30 in case #2558/1/2020
Denies as inadmissible the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Ombudsman concerning: “uniform interpretation and application of Art. 65 para. (2) in Law #53/2003, as republished, in the matter of the phrase ‘genuine and serious case’ in the sense of establishing ‘whether a serious character of a termination of position involves, in the situation of a reduction in the number of several identical positions existing with the employer, the latter having to apply certain criteria for differentiation/selection in order to justify their specific selection of the employee/-s to be terminated out of the total number of employees engaged in identical or similar work.”
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of December 2020.
Judgment #31 in case #2551/1/2020
Sustains the appeal in the interest of the law brought by the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Review and Justice.
1. In the uniform interpretation and application of Art. 51 para. (2) first thesis, para. (3), para. (8), para. (9) and para. (11) in Law #94/1992 on the Organization and Operation of the Court of Audit, as republished, amended and supplemented, corroborated with Art. 2 in the Implementation Rules on calculation of the service pension as under Law #94/1992 on the Organization and Operation of the Court of Audit, as republished, amended and supplemented by Law #7/2016 and Law #145/2017, sanctioned by Order of the Chair of the Court of Audit and the Chair of the National Public Pensions Office #285/138/2016, as amended and supplemented: the former external public auditors who, on the date of meeting the standard conditions for retirement, were engaged in a different occupation, as well as former external public auditors who, on the date of filing their application, had retired for the age limit and from a different occupation, cannot receive the service pension stipulated by Art. 51 para. (3) in Law #94/1992 for a minimum term of service of 4 years as external public auditor with the Court of Audit.
2. In the uniform interpretation and application Art. 51 para. (14) in Law #94/1992, corroborated with Art. 9 para. (3) letter c) in the Implementation Rules approved under Order #285/138/2016: the Court of Audit is not under an obligation to issue the standard certification document needed for applications for service pension by persons who do not meet the legal requirements to receive service pension as former external public auditors.
Obligatory, as under Art. 517 para. (4) in the Civil Procedure Code.
Returned in public session today, the 7th of December 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