ANGHELACHE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 44628/19 • ECHR ID: 001-217203
Document date: April 8, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
Published on 25 April 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 44628/19 Eugen ANGHELACHE and Others against Romania lodged on 19 August 2019 communicated on 8 April 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the conflicting case-law of the domestic appellate courts which delivered final decisions in litigations regarding the acknowledgment of whether or not claimants, such as the applicants in the present case, employees of the Prahova Sanitary-Veterinary and Food Safety Directorate, were entitled according to the law (the Government Decision no. 917/2017) to receive specific allowances in addition to their salaries, allowances which were meant to compensate for the “dangerous working conditions” in which they were working.
Following the entry into force of the GD no. 917/2017 on 1 January 2018, an expert report was issued according to which all employees of the Prahova Sanitary-Veterinary and Food Safety Directorate were working in dangerous conditions. The employer subsequently awarded the corresponding allowances only to some of its employees, excluding the applicants, who therefore challenged this decision before the courts.
On 13 March 2019 the Ploiești Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision of 31 October 2018 and dismissed the applicants’ claims. It found that the request of the applicants was implicitly a request for the annulment of individual decisions establishing salaries, which were supposed to be lodged only after a preliminary administrative procedure with the employer, as prescribed by Article 37 of Law no. 153/2017. As the applicants had not exhausted that preliminary procedure, their claims were inadmissible. The court further agreed with the employer that according to the relevant law, namely Articles 38 § 3(a) and 38 § 6 of Law no. 153/2017 regulating the public salaries framework, such allowances were to be awarded starting with 2018 exceptionally to those whose salaries, following their increase at the end of 2017, reached a specific level as set out in the law.
In so far as the relevant legal provisions seemed to be divergently interpreted by the domestic courts, the Ombudsman lodged an appeal in the interests of the law seeking the clarification of the matter; she argued that the impugned allowance aimed to counterbalance specific working conditions, hence, it should not have been linked to any salary level. Also, the differential treatment thus applied to employees who were working in similarly difficult conditions was not justified. The said discrimination had in fact been confirmed by the National Council for Combatting Discrimination in a 2019 decision.
On 26 October 2020 the High Court of Cassation and Justice established that the allowances were to be given as prescribed for by Law no. 153/2017, namely, in connection with the progressive levels of salaries. The High Court confirmed that discrimination existed but considered that in so far as it had been created by the law, the judge was not capable of remedying it by issuing individual decisions against the law. Furthermore, the High Court noted that in view of that discrimination, the Chamber of Deputies was discussing a law project, aiming to grant the allowances to all employees working in difficult 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 22 January 2021. A decision delivered on an appeal in the interests of the law cannot alter the outcome of cases already decided.
The draft law mentioned by the High Court in its decision was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies on 4 November 2020, the allowances being granted as of the moment of the entry into force of the amended law.
The applicants complain of violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, arguing mainly that the Ploiești Court of Appeal wrongfully denied their right to the said allowances, underlining that there was divergent case-law on the matter. To substantiate their claims, they submitted five final decisions issued by the same but also by other appellate courts, which found that the interpretation proposed by the employer was arbitrary.
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 they were entitled to specific allowances relating to their working 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 Others 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. Have the applicants been subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 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 , Napotnik v. Romania , no. 33139/13, §§ 54-55, 20 October 2020; Albu and Others , cited above, § 44)?
Appendix
List of applicants
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.Eugen ANGHELACHE
1972Romanian
Băicoi
2.Liviana-Rodica ÈšANE
1967Romanian
Ploiești
3.Adrian-George BOTOACÄ‚
1985Romanian
Comarnic
4.Sorela BUȘĂ
1969Romanian
Ploiești
5.Gabriel CAZAN
1976Romanian
Drajna de Jos
6.Camelia CHIRIÈšESCU
1977Romanian
Ploiești
7.Mircea-Horia CHIRIÈšESCU
1974Romanian
Ploiești
8.Marian CIU
1966Romanian
Ploiești
9.Mariana-Ramona COLÈš
1976Romanian
Șipotu
10.Ion-Cristian COLÅ¢
1975Romanian
Șipotu
11.Nina-Mirela CONSTANTIN
1976Romanian
Băicoi
12.Iolanda-Silvana CRÄ‚CIUN
1970Romanian
Ploiești
13.Luella DÄ‚NILÄ‚
1980Romanian
Ploiești
14.Elisa-Florentina DASCÄ‚LU
1974Romanian
Ploiești
15.Vasilica DELIU
1980Romanian
Ploiești
16.Octavian DINU
1978Romanian
Strejnicu
17.Adrian DIÅ¢U
1960Romanian
Ploiești
18.Anca-Nicoleta DIÈšU
1964Romanian
Ploiești
19.Dan DRUGEA
1967Romanian
Bucov
20.Emanuel DUMA
1986Romanian
Ploiești
21.Paul-Laurențiu DUMITRESCU
1967Romanian
Ploiești
22.Viorel DUMITRESCU
1964Romanian
Ploiești
23.Dumitru ENACHE
1955Romanian
Ploiești
24.Cătălina-Victoria GHIUŢĂ
1968Romanian
Ploiești
25.Maria-Cătălina IACOB
1974Romanian
Ploiești
26.Elena ILIE
1983Romanian
Ploiești
27.Gabriel-Dorin IORDACHE
1973Romanian
Ploiești
28.Luminița-Maria MURARIU
1961Romanian
Ploiești
29.Gina-Camelia NICOLESCU
1968Romanian
Ploiești
30.Georgeta-Alina OANCEA
1978Romanian
Ploiești
31.Niculina OLARU
1963Romanian
Ploiești
32.Constanţa PĂUNOIU
1971Romanian
Ploiești
33.Geana PENEÅž
1960Romanian
Cosmina de Sus
34.Răzvan PETICILĂ
1967Romanian
Comarnic
35.Adriana PETRE
1965Romanian
Ploiești
36.Bogdan PETRE
1974Romanian
Florești
37.Nicolae-Sebastian PETRE
1975Romanian
Băicoi
38.Mihaela POPA
1969Romanian
Câmpina
39.Mariana PREDA
1968Romanian
Ploiești
40.Luminiţa-Florentina RĂDULESCU
1974Romanian
Cornu de Jos
41.Lucian-Daniel RUSNAC
1962Romanian
Cioranii de Jos
42.Cristina-Petruţa SORESCU
1969Romanian
Vălenii de Munte
43.Aurelia-Roxana STOICA
1973Romanian
Bătești
44.Laurențiu-Vasile STOLNICU
1972Romanian
Ploiești
45.Viorel-Cătălin SURLARU
1976Romanian
Ploiești
46.Andreica TÄ‚NASE
1964Romanian
Ploiești
47.Vasile TÄ‚NASE
1957Romanian
Ploiești
48.Elena TELEANU
1968Romanian
Ploiești
49.Gheorghe-Marian TOADER
1978Romanian
Cornu
50.Adrian-Claudiu UDROIU
1977Romanian
Ploiești
51.Loredana UDROIU
1975Romanian
Ploiești
52.Alina-Georgeta VÄ‚CÄ‚REL
1977Romanian
Ploiești
53.Lucian-Marian VÄ‚CÄ‚REL
1975Romanian
Ploiești
54.Liliana-Gabriela VOINOIU
1967Romanian
Ploiești
55.Argentina-Veronica ZAHARIA
1973Romanian
Băicoi
56.Iudita ZAMFIRESCU-MIHAI
1965Romanian
PloieÅŸti