Search
document

PETRESCU v. ROMANIA and 9 other applications

Doc ref: 31390/18;31399/18;31401/18;32201/18;33778/18;34299/18;34575/18;39156/18;59983/18;42447/19 • ECHR ID: 001-206171

Document date: October 22, 2020

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 4

PETRESCU v. ROMANIA and 9 other applications

Doc ref: 31390/18;31399/18;31401/18;32201/18;33778/18;34299/18;34575/18;39156/18;59983/18;42447/19 • ECHR ID: 001-206171

Document date: October 22, 2020

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 22 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 31390/18 Amelia- Nicoleta PETRESCU against Romania and 9 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the conflicting case-law of the domestic appellate courts which delivered the final decisions in litigations regarding the acknowledgment of whether or not the claimants, employees of forensic medicine services, worked in “special conditions” ( condi ţ ii deosebite de munc ă ). Such acknowledgment triggered specific pension-related rights and impacted on the claimants ’ seniority in their job. According to the case-law of some of the appellate courts, all employees working in forensic medicine services had to be considered by default as working in “special conditions”; according to another line of case-law applied by the domestic courts in the applicants ’ cases, such conditions had to be first acknowledged by the Regional Labour Department, which had to assess the steps taken by each employer on a case-by-case basis and to confirm whether or not they complied with the conditions set out by the general law on the granting of this status.

The final decisions dismissing the applicants ’ claims to be considered as having worked in “special conditions” for several years are mentioned in the appended table; in parallel proceedings lodged by the applicants ’ colleagues, working in the same field, the same claim was allowed by other appellate courts.

On 14 October 2019 the High Court of Cassation and Justice rendered its decision in an appeal in the interests of the law, holding that the working conditions in forensic medicine services had to be considered by default as “special conditions”. According to the domestic law, the High Court ’ s interpretation of the legal provisions in question is binding on all the domestic courts only once the High Court ’ s extensive decision is published in the Official Gazette, namely, in the present case, on 12 December 2019. A decision delivered on an appeal in the interests of the law cannot alter the outcome of cases already decided.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants had a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as similar actions before the domestic courts, concerning the interpretation of certain legal provisions defining whether or not work was to be considered as being performed in “special conditions”, had different outcomes? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty, as developed in the Court ’ s case-law in the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention (see for instance Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Oth ers v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016; and Albu and Others v. Romania , nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, § § 34 and 42, 10 May 2012), complied with by the domestic courts?

2. Has the alleged inconsistent approach taken by the domestic courts in the applicants ’ case, as opposed to other similar cases, constituted an infringement of the applicants ’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular of their alleged right to obtain specific pension rights and benefits linked to the special working conditions ’ acknowledgment, as claimed before the domestic courts (see mutatis mutandis, Tudor Tudor v. Romania , no. 21911/03, 24 March 2009 and Ştefănică and Others v. Romania , no. 38155/02, § § 41-42, 2 November 2010)?

3 . Have the applicants been subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with respectively Article 6 of the Convention and with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, having regard to the fact that other claimants ’ relevantly similar actions before the domestic courts had a favourable outcome (see, mutatis mutandis , Åžtefănică and Others , cited above, § § 41 ‑ 42 and Driha v. Romania , no. 29556/02, § 38, 21 February 2008)?

Appendix List of 10 applications

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Year of Birth

Place of Residence

Nationality

Represented by

Final decision

31390/18

28/06/2018

Amelia- Nicoleta PETRESCU

1958Bucharest

Romanian

Iulia Monica DUMITRU

7/03/2018

Bucharest Court of Appeal

31399/18

28/06/2018

Claudia- Nicoleta MATAC

1970Bucharest

Romanian

Iulia Monica DUMITRU

7/03/2018

Bucharest Court of Appeal

31401/18

28/06/2018

Florența-Narcisa MANEA

1974Bucharest

Romanian

Iulia Monica DUMITRU

7/03/2018

Bucharest Court of Appeal

32201/18

02/07/2018

Mihaela Gabriela BERDAN

1967Bucharest

Romanian

Iulia Monica DUMITRU

7/03/2018

Bucharest Court of Appeal

33778/18

10/07/2018

Nicoleta CARAMAN

1969Bucharest

Romanian

Mariana RAPEA

1974Bucharest

Romanian

Virginica APOSTOL

1958Bucharest

Romanian

Sabin Ovidiu SÄ‚RARU

7/03/2018

Bucharest Court of Appeal

34299/18

04/07/2018

Elena TURCU

1973Bucharest

Romanian

Iulia Monica DUMITRU

7/03/2018

Bucharest Court of Appeal

34575/18

04/07/2018

Ștefania PETRE

1966Bucharest

Romanian

Iulia Monica DUMITRU

7/03/2018

Bucharest Court of Appeal

39156/18

06/08/2018

George OPRIȘ

1967Bucharest

Romanian

Iulia Monica DUMITRU

7/03/2018

Bucharest Court of Appeal

59983/18

07/12/2018

Jadranka SHANAZO-STANISICI

1979Constanța

Romanian

n/a

8/06/2018,

Constan ţ a Court of Appeal

42447/19

05/08/2019

Florentina PORUMBOI

1984Sfântu Gheoghe

Romanian

Gabriela TRUÈšA

1966Sfântu Gheorghe

Romanian

Adorjan LUKÁCS

1971Sfântu Gheorghe

Romanian

Elena-Felicia CLIMESCU

1974Sfântu Gheorghe

Romanian

Ionel BRÄ‚NESCU

1973Sfântu Gheorghe

Romanian

Enikő GIERLING

1956Sfântu Gheorghe

Romanian

Tibor TUNYA

1969Sfântu Gheorghe

Romanian

Blanka RÁPOLTI

1981Coseni

Romanian

Carmen- Marcela BARBU

1971Sfântu Gheorghe

Romanian

Stefan- Leontin JOÓS

1973Sfântu Gheorghe

Romanian

Mihaela Elena PETCU

11/03/2019,

Bra ÅŸ ov Court of Appeal

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant