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” (condiţii deosebite de muncă). 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 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. 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, Ştefănică 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
1
31390/18
28/06/2018
Amelia-Nicoleta PETRESCU
1958
Bucharest
Romanian
Iulia Monica DUMITRU
7/03/2018
Bucharest Court of Appeal
2
31399/18
28/06/2018
Claudia-Nicoleta MATAC
1970
Bucharest
Romanian
Iulia Monica DUMITRU
7/03/2018
Bucharest Court of Appeal
3
31401/18
28/06/2018
Florența-Narcisa MANEA
1974
Bucharest
Romanian
Iulia Monica DUMITRU
7/03/2018
Bucharest Court of Appeal
4
32201/18
02/07/2018
Mihaela Gabriela BERDAN
1967
Bucharest
Romanian
Iulia Monica DUMITRU
7/03/2018
Bucharest Court of Appeal
5
33778/18
10/07/2018
Nicoleta CARAMAN
1969
Bucharest
Romanian
Mariana RAPEA
1974
Bucharest
Romanian
Virginica APOSTOL
1958
Bucharest
Romanian
Sabin Ovidiu SĂRARU
7/03/2018
Bucharest Court of Appeal
6
34299/18
04/07/2018
Elena TURCU
1973
Bucharest
Romanian
Iulia Monica DUMITRU
7/03/2018
Bucharest Court of Appeal
7
34575/18
04/07/2018
Ștefania PETRE
1966
Bucharest
Romanian
Iulia Monica DUMITRU
7/03/2018
Bucharest Court of Appeal
8
39156/18
06/08/2018
George OPRIȘ
1967
Bucharest
Romanian
Iulia Monica DUMITRU
7/03/2018
Bucharest Court of Appeal
9
59983/18
07/12/2018
Jadranka SHANAZO-STANISICI
1979
Constanța
Romanian
n/a
8/06/2018,
Constanţa Court of Appeal
10
42447/19
05/08/2019
Florentina PORUMBOI
1984
Sfântu Gheoghe
Romanian
Gabriela TRUȚA
1966
Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Adorjan LUKÁCS
1971
Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Elena-Felicia CLIMESCU
1974
Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Ionel BRĂNESCU
1973
Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Enikő GIERLING
1956
Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Tibor TUNYA
1969
Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Blanka RÁPOLTI
1981
Coseni
Romanian
Carmen-Marcela BARBU
1971
Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Stefan-Leontin JOÓS
1973
Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Mihaela Elena PETCU
11/03/2019,
Braşov Court of Appeal
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy